2018-12-03 45 1 7 House of Reps 0 1

Monday, 3 December 2018

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

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 1 Report 1 10:01 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson Today I present the 33rd report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament. PETITIONS 1 PETITIONS Australian Broadcasting Corporation 1 Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme 1 PETITIONS 1 PETITIONS Responses 1 10:01 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I present 19 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented: Medical Workforce 1 Live Animal Exports 2 Health 3 Radioactive Waste Management 3 Energy: Light Bulbs 4 Illicit Drugs 4 Australian Constitution 5 Economy 5 Child Support Act 5 Migration 6 Child Abuse 7 Electric Vehicles 8 Business 8 Parliament 9 Australian Constitution 9 Organ and Tissue Donation 17 Cost of Living 18 Child Protection 18 Minister for Home Affairs 19 PETITIONS 19 PETITIONS Statements 19 10:01 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson As part of the inquiry into the future of petitioning in the House, this committee heard via videoconference last week from the Petitions Committee of the UK House of Commons. The chair of the committee, Helen Jones, explained that petitions can be referred for debate in their second chamber, Westminster Hall. She suggested that these debates, together with the introduction of e-petitioning, have significantly increased public engagement and interest in petitions. Currently, the Australian parliament does not have a similar mechanism to refer petitions for debate in either chamber. On behalf of the committee, I thank the House of Commons for the opportunity to learn from their experience with petitions. This inquiry is a timely opportunity for the committee to reflect on its role and its current practices and to consider ways to further strengthen the petitioning process in Australia. The committee hopes that some of the outcomes of this current inquiry could lead to positive change as part of an integral part of our democratic process. I look forward to updating the House further on the work of the Petitions Committee and on the progress of the committee's inquiry. BILLS 20 BILLS International Human Rights and Corruption (Magnitsky Sanctions) Bill 2018 20

International Human Rights and Corruption (Magnitsky Sanctions) Bill 2018

First Reading 20 Second Reading 20 10:04 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports I move: That this bill be now read a second time. If you're the general who sent the military hooligans to shoot down MH17 or you're the official in Khartoum who sends the Janjaweed militia to murder the Muslim people of Western Sudan or you're the Beijing official who has set up concentration camps for a million Uygur people in East Kazakhstan, you will not like this bill. For too long, government officials and others connected with authoritarian governments and kleptocracies around the world have gotten away with their abuses of power without sanction. Rubbing salt into the wounds of those they exploit—the ordinary law-abiding citizens of their countries—these abusers use their ill-gotten gains and status to travel abroad and bask in the affluence of the West, purchasing and investing in assets overseas, sending their children to expensive overseas private schools, hiding their ill-gotten gains in offshore bank accounts, and generally using such money offshore for the benefit of themselves, their families and their cronies. The aims of this bill—the International Human Rights and Corruption (Magnitsky Sanctions) Bill 2018—are threefold: first, to prevent prescribed foreign persons engaged in gross violations of human rights and corruption from visiting Australia and spending and investing their money here. It does this by enabling the Governor-General on the advice of the minister to target these individuals with immigration, financial and trade sanctions; second, by imposing sanctions on these individuals they are exposed to the world and to the people of their countries as pariahs in the international community; and third, it is hoped that such sanctions and exposure will deter individuals in these authoritarian regimes from engaging in future gross human rights violations and corruption. As we know, sunlight can be one of the best disinfectants. Sergei Magnitsky, whose name appears in the title of this bill, was a Russian lawyer who acted for Mr Bill Browder and his Hermitage Capital in Russia. Magnitsky discovered that some $230 million paid by Browder's company in taxes to the Russian government had been fraudulently misappropriated by officials working together with organised criminals. Magnitsky, naively, testified against these Russian officials. What happened then was an outrage. In testimony before the US House of Representatives, it was explained that Magnitsky: … thought that the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, was someone who was acting in the national interest, and if this $230 million theft— of Russian people's money— was exposed … the good guys would get the bad guys and that would be the end of the story. Instead, after Sergei— Magnitsky— testified against these officials, the same officials … arrested him, put him in pretrial detention, tortured him in the most horrific way for 358 days— and he was killed in Russia on 16 November 2009. We thought the days of the Lubyanka were over in Stalin's time, but they weren't. The United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have already responded to Russia's increasing international aggression with democratic legislation called the Magnitsky legislation. These laws link Russia and other authoritarian countries' corruption and human rights abuses with bars on entry, the moving of funds and receiving family education. Partially as a response to Russia's insolent indifference to the murder of 220 people and 38 Australians, I have moved this legislation. Let's remember that the joint investigation team, in which Australia participated, reported that the Russians sent a Buk 7 missile launcher from the 53rd brigade of the Russian Federation army across into disputed Ukraine. It then shot down the MH17. Both then and now, Russia and its leader, Vladimir Putin, have displayed a cruel indifference to their role in causing the tragic and unnecessary death of citizens from around the world, including the 38 Australians, and I speak today on their behalf. Australians are still outraged, Mr Putin, and the Duma of the Russian Federation should act to respond to this. The Magnitsky acts are becoming, around the world, a weapon for democratic push-back by Western governments against officials connected with authoritarian governments who engage in serious human rights abuses and corruption in their own countries. It's great to see, all round the world, democratic push-back, legislation by parliaments like ours in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. As the international lawyer Geoffrey Robertson argues, Magnitsky laws are national laws that allow governments: … to apply targeted sanctions on any individual involved in a human rights violation, from senior officials to lowlevel officers, from judges to policemen, and even non-government actors such as CEOs and contractors— as we know them in Russia, oligarchs. They: … take the form of asset freezes for funds held in banks and other financial institutions, as well as bans on visas for entering the country. It was a very interesting article of his in Australian Quarterly. The idea of pushing back on authoritarian regimes is best explained in testimony before the US Congress: Criminal justice is based on jurisdiction: One cannot prosecute someone in New York for a murder committed in Moscow. The murder of Sergei Magnitsky, for instance, was done under the cover of theft of the $230 million from the Russian Treasury. The money that was stolen wouldn't be kept in Russia. They easily stole it there. But they keep their ill-gotten gains in the West, where property rights and the rule of law exists. This led to the idea of freezing their assets and banning their visa travel to Western democratic countries. Following democratic pressure to extend the Magnitsky laws, the United States, for instance, in 2016, passed the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which this proposed bill of mine partially replicates. It deals with corrupt abusers of human rights and corruption all around the world, not just in Russia. In addition to the direct effects it has on individuals, the mere threat of exposure of corrupt human rights abuse is likely to have a significant deterrent effect on anyone contemplating such conduct around the world. For instance, the human rights activist and president of the World Uyghur Congress, my friend ‎Rebiya Kadeer, in a statement before the US House of Representatives subcommittee, said: If this act becomes law, it will have a profound ripple effect, because mere listing some of the most well-known human rights violators in authoritarian states like China will send a powerful message to low-ranking officials that their criminal actions will not be immune to international scrutiny, condemnation, and consequences. I think we are all outraged—and I, particularly with my background, find it incredible—that, in these days, a million Uyghur people could be sent to concentration camps. Xinjiang—or East Kazakhstan—Communist Party viceroy, Chen Quanguo, with his monstrous plan to incarcerate a million Uyghurs in concentration camps, will not be forgotten by legislation like this if it is passed and a future federal government has a chance to name him—just as the Christian people are being persecuted in China at the moment, with their churches blown up and crosses blown off the roofs. The Global Magnitsky Act will protect the fundamental human rights of the oppressed and save the lives of people in Burma, Darfur, North Korea and Syria. According to Browder: The global Magnitsky sanctions will issue a stark warning to human rights abusers and kleptocrats around the world that no longer will they be able to commit atrocities with complete impunity. Targeted sanctions against those involved in corruption and human rights abuse will provide an immediate, tangible consequence which directly affects an individual where it hurts them the most—in their pocket. Leaders of corrupt regimes will know they are no longer able to protect their ill-gotten gains abroad, or flee to their lavish properties in foreign countries. Totalitarian dictatorships ultimately fall, and when they do, the Global Magnitsky Act will prevent those who have committed human rights abuses from claiming asylum almost anywhere in the world. It's time that Australia joined this growing international movement and adopted its own global Magnitsky law. The more countries that adopt such laws, the more jurisdictions can potentially be made out of bounds to individuals involved in the shooting down of planes over Ukraine; murdering journalists inside embassies; interning and abusing millions of Uyghurs in concentration camps; expelling or killing Rohingyas; starving, incarcerating, torturing and executing 300,000 citizens in concentration camps in North Korea; or ethnic cleansing of people in places like Darfur, Rwanda and Srebrenica—and so on and so on. Vladimir Putin hates these laws not so much because they could potentially target him directly—something that is probably unlikely, given international relations—but because they could be used to target and expose his cronies and thus make them less amenable to doing his bidding. Geoffrey Robertson, in his fine article in Australian Quarterly, concluded by saying: If all advanced democracies … adopted such laws and pooled information and target lists, the pleasures available to the cruel and corrupt would be considerably diminished. I think democratic countries around the world need to be involved in more push-back against these authoritarian regimes. This is something that should attract the support of both sides of politics. The great Australian actor Peter Finch, in the film Network, advised people to open their windows and shout, 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore'. That should be the attitude that informs democratic citizens right across the world. I urge them to support this Magnitsky bill. People who want to speak to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne, the opposition shadow minister for foreign affairs, Senator Wong, the Attorney-General, Mr Porter, or the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, should do it. Email them. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 10:14 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I second the motion and reserve my speak. The SPEAKER 00APG The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018 (No. 2) 22

Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018 (No. 2)

First Reading 22 Second Reading 22 10:15 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Australians were horrified by the images in the 60 Minutes report in April this year. It has now been eight months, and no meaningful action has been taken by the government. There have been attempts to delay, distract, and weather the storm. But let me tell you, Mr Speaker, the Australian community have not forgotten this and they continue to make contact with MPs. I alone receive between 70 and 80 emails on any given day. The bill I introduced today mirrors the compromise bill that was first introduced by the member for Farrer, and I applaud her leadership on this issue and that of the member for Corangamite, who seconded her on this issue. I worked with the member for Farrer to reach a compromise that stretched across party lines. It cannot be the perfect bill for everyone who has a view on this issue, but it is a good bill, an excellent working compromise that provides the opportunity for the supply chain of the long-haul live sheep export industry to transition over five years to genuinely create sustainable markets and practices. The words of the member for Farrer, for 17 years a sheep farmer herself, so well summarise the tragedy of the live sheep export industry. I quote the member: The litany of animal cruelty in the live sheep trade makes a mockery of the industry's 'No fear, no pain' mantra. If the rules were actually enforced—access to feed, water and rest, avoiding high heat stress, no commercial operator would undertake the trade. Exporters have explained to me that it would not be viable. Unfortunately this is an industry with an operating model built on animal suffering. So I support the member for Farrer's views, as does, I believe, a majority of this House and clearly also a majority of the Senate. The overwhelming response from the Australian people tells every person in this place that they want us to act. Members have told me that they've never before seen an issue that has created such an immediate and overwhelming flood of emails, letters and phone calls to their offices. And so with this reasoned, sensible, centre-way bill, the government, yet again, need to act. They've failed to act so far. As the member for Farrer also noted, the long-haul live sheep export industry is in terminal decline. It accounts for only six per cent of our sheep and lamb off-take, and is supported predominantly by rapidly unwinding subsidies from Middle Eastern governments. Ninety-nine per cent of consumers in the Gulf have refrigeration and every Middle Eastern country accepts Australia's halal slaughter. This bill should not be perceived as a threat but as the impetus and opportunity to develop a supporting package of measures that help the six per cent transition away from long-haul live sheep exports, and to support jobs, farmers, and creating abattoirs under Australian code. These are regional jobs, and I have a regional electorate that wants these jobs. There are opportunities for reinvigorated abattoirs in my own electorate of Mayo. We could have this at Normanville. We could mirror this in Western Australia and elsewhere. To quote the member for Corangamite: If the bill is passed, it will provide our farmers, processors and the extended supply chain with the appropriate time to transition completely to chilled lamb and mutton exports to the Middle East, to grow our sheepmeat processing capacity, to invest with certainty, to protect and enhance our reputation as a nation of agricultural excellence and to invest in more Australian jobs. Yet, I must confess that I believe our current government is incapable of grasping the opportunities of a transition and acting upon the long-haul live sheep export. It has well and truly given up listening to the Australian people and has instead focused on the echo chamber of its own internal squabbles. And so I say to the coalition government: you can do better than this. You can act. These are jobs in your regional communities as much as they are jobs in my regional community of Mayo. You can hark back to a judicious past by adopting a sensible centrist solution to long-haul live sheep export. The Australian people overwhelmingly expect you to do this, and will find you lacking if you do not. I make a particular call-out to the member for Farrer and the member for Corangamite. You had the gumption to come in here and introduce a bill—a bill that you believed in. I note that both members now have ministries. I hope that that's not the reason for their change of mind and change of heart. I commend the bill to the House. I would like to grant the remainder of my time to the new member for Wentworth, who is seconding the bill. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 10:20 Dr PHELPS 008Z0 Wentworth Yes, it's my pleasure to second the Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018 (No. 2), which has been introduced by the member for Mayo. During the recent by-election, the people of Wentworth made it clear to me that they will no longer tolerate the inhumane practices of the live sheep export trade. The bill proposes an end only to long-haul live sheep exports. It does not affect cattle or short-haul exports. This ban is to be phased in over five years. This is a measured and responsible lead time that will allow farmers, processors and the extended supply chain the necessary time to transition to chilled exports. This transition will allow additional jobs as domestic processing capacity is increased and will end the cloud of uncertainty over the industry that has hindered investment. The bill also proposes that from 2019 there will be no export of live sheep to the Middle East during the hottest Northern Hemisphere summer months of July, August and September. These measures will restore Australia's reputation as a nation of agricultural excellence. I note that the government recently released the Moss review into the capability and culture of the live export regulator. The review found that regulation of the industry does not meet community expectations and that the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources needs to strengthen its regulatory capability and culture. This would include the establishment of an inspector-general of live animal exports to provide independent oversight and evaluation of the live animal export regulator and the regulatory system. However, the release of the Moss report does nothing to change my view that live sheep exports must be phased out. The live sheep export industry has had plenty of chances to lift its game and in my view is beyond redemption. Having seen footage of live sheep being transported to the Middle East in terrible conditions, I see no justification for this inhumane trade. It is shocking and cruel that these animals spend weeks in extreme heat and overcrowded conditions, with many dying on the way to their destination. A poll conducted on 20 September by Animals Australia in the seat of Wentworth and subsequently released during the by-election campaign found that 72.2 per cent of people surveyed in the electorate of Wentworth said that they support a phasing-out of live sheep exports. I said during the Wentworth by-election that I would follow the wishes of my electorate and back the phasing out of live sheep exports. This speech and my position honours that commitment. I commend this bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Heritage Listing for the Bight) Bill 2018 24

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Heritage Listing for the Bight) Bill 2018

First Reading 24 Second Reading 24 10:24 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Heritage Listing for the Bight) Bill 2018, is to bestow greater environmental protection upon the Great Australian Bight and those who rely upon it for their livelihoods by granting it National Heritage status. The Great Australian Bight is one of the few remaining large coastal regions in the world that has not yet been overexploited. The Bight is a biodiversity hotspot, a major fisheries resource and tourism drawcard, and the source of the livelihoods and the way of life of towns and cities across the entire coastline of South Australia and beyond. And yet, under a Labor government, the former Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, opened the Bight for oil drilling just as British Petroleum was spewing forth 4.9 million barrels of oil—that's 780,000 cubic metres—into the Gulf of Mexico in the notorious Deepwater Horizon disaster. Eleven people died in that disaster. The full catastrophic effect upon marine life, the environmental food chains and resultant health impacts are still not fully known, but the indications are alarming and the effects continue to this day. However, it is not alarmism to say that my community of Mayo and the communities along the South Australian shorelines do not want to see that happen again or to our region. This is not a left- or right-wing issue. Rural and urban communities have lined up across South Australia to voice their opposition. There are 13 local councils in South Australia that currently oppose seismic drilling, seismic testing, in the Bight, including all of the coastal councils in my electorate of Mayo: Alexandrina Council, Kangaroo Island Council, the District Council of Yankalilla and the City of Victor Harbor. My community of Mayo has been polled by the Australia Institute as having 74 per cent support for World Heritage protection of the Bight and majority support from voters across all political parties. The current government is simply ignoring community sentiment across my electorate, South Australia and the Bight. However, the same can be said of the opposition. The Labor Party talk a big game about protecting jobs and about acting on climate change, but they have been notably silent on drilling for oil in the Bight. Not only is the Labor Party remaining complicit in this folly; they are the ones originally responsible for it. Whatever did happen to former Minister Martin Ferguson? He unashamedly profiteered from his actions and connections made as a resources minister by becoming the head of the oil and gas lobby—yet another reason we need a national integrity commission! I recognise that, according to current modelling produced by the big oil companies, the chance of a spill is predicted to be relatively low, yet the impacts of any spill are modelled as utterly catastrophic. The latest foreign company to line up to have a crack at our Bight is Equinor, a Norwegian state oil company. Their worst-case discharge estimates range between 4.3 million barrels to 7.9 million barrels—that's between approximately one and two the destruction of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The worst-case scenario would see oil spread from Albany, right across the Bight, to envelope the entire coastline of Tasmania and wrap around the east coast as far as Port Macquarie. Suddenly, South Australia's problem would become Western Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales and Victoria's problem too. My community and the communities across south-eastern Australia would be devastated. Every swimmer at the beach, every fisherman and fisherwoman, every bed and breakfast, every fish and chip shop and everyone anywhere near the coast would be affected. There is an economic argument for banning oil drilling in the Bight. I would like to see such risky deepwater drilling in the Bight banned altogether. However, I recognise the affection for abdicating Australia's sovereignty to avoid so-called 'sovereign risk'. This catchphrase argument amounts to: 'We can't stop a bad decision once it's been made because it might scare off future investors.' Well, I, for one, want to avoid bad decisions in the first place! And I believe that this bill strikes the right balance between sovereign risk and social, economic and environmental protection. In recognition of that balance, the bill does not propose an outright ban on oil drilling in the Bight, but it does require that all activities carried out in Commonwealth waters in the Bight do not have unacceptable impacts upon: the national heritage and environmental values of the Bight; the ecological character of a declared Ramsar wetland such as the Coorong and Murray Mouth; listed migratory species, listed threatened species and ecological communities; and the environment in a Commonwealth marine area or on Commonwealth land. This would set the current threshold for resource exploitation substantially higher so as to adequately safeguard the livelihoods of South Australian coastal communities and also the environment in the Bight upon which they rely. This is what the community wants. This is what my community says. We are not antidevelopment, but we must manage catastrophic risk at the appropriately high threshold. It also opens up the pathway for the Bight to become a World Heritage listed area and join its rightful place as one of the natural wonders of Australia that includes the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu and Uluru. In conclusion, I urge the government and opposition to heed what the community wants and prevent risky oil drilling in the Bight. This bill strikes a careful balance, and, I believe, the right balance. I would like at this point to reach out to all of the Hands Across the Sand communities and all of the people across Mayo and beyond in South Australia who have called for us to have World Heritage status. This is a great first step. I commend this bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded? Mr Wilkie C2T It's my pleasure to second the bill, and I reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate is made an order of the day for the next sitting. Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018 [No. 2] 25

Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018 [No. 2]

First Reading 25 Second Reading 25 10:31 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In the final parliamentary sitting week of last year, this chamber overwhelmingly voted to make marriage equality a reality. No-one who sat in the House for that final vote on that day will forget the emotion of that moment, and yet it is not even a year past, barely 360 days. The Australian people are entitled to ask if their government has already forgotten the lessons of that day and that change. On marriage equality, it's fair to say that our the parliament followed behind the people of Australia, trailed the people of Australia by years. Too many times a simple question of every Australian's right to be equal in the eyes of the law was contorted and distorted and delayed, weaponised in a culture war, employed as a proxy for internal struggles. And then, in a final admission of failure, the decision was outsourced to a postal survey. For too many of our fellow Australians, this survey was a gruelling, emotional ordeal. What a cheek for loving couples to have their relationships subjected to the judgement of 16 million strangers! Our young Australians, some have been grappling with their identity, listening to people publicly argue that somehow they were second-class citizens. It's a powerful testament to the resilience and courage of our LGBTI community that they came through last year unbowed. It is a tribute to the wisdom and generosity of our fellow Australians and, in particular, of our young Australians. But that is no reason to revisit it in another form, no reason to reopen scars still in the process of healing. Our country does not need another nasty, ill-informed debate about whether people's sexuality somehow diminishes their right to equality, especially when the Australians we are talking about are children and young people. There are many parents and aunts and uncles and neighbours here in this chamber. All of us want our children to be happy at school, to make friends, to be resilient—to learn character and values, as well as maths and science and reading and writing and coding. I'm sure all of us try and teach our children to be kind and respectful. I'm like most Australians; I don't make a habit of talking about my faith publicly as a rule. But, as the beneficiary of a Jesuit education, this is what I was taught. I was taught the lessons of the Beatitudes, perhaps the most famous speech in human history, from the Sermon on the Mount. It was a message of universal love, tolerance and service—the instruction to' judge not, for in the same way you judge others, you will be judged', and to in everything 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. When I was at school, this was called the golden rule: to do to others what you would have them do unto you. Today this parliament has a chance to write the principle of the golden rule into the laws of our land. I believe we should be able to do this without a protracted or heated debate, without a whole lot of delaying tactics and diversionary arguments, because surely as a parliament and a people we can agree that every Australian child has the right to be treated equally. This is precisely and solely what this legislation seeks to do. Simply put, this legislation will prevent any child from being denied an education because of their sexuality. Voting for this bill would repeal section 38(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act, which currently makes it lawful for religious education institutions to discriminate against another person on the ground of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity in the provision of education and training. Put another way, this legislation removes the power of schools to discriminate against a prospective or current student on the basis of their sexual orientation. I want to be clear about this: the power to discriminate is something that many of the religious school administrators I've spoken to in the preparation of this legislation have made it clear to me that they do not want and do not use it. Catholic schools, Anglican schools and Baptist schools have all said so. The archbishops and the bishops I've spoken to do not seek its retention. Our legislation seeks the balance between protecting the religious freedom of faith based schools and protecting the essential human dignity of every Australian child. That's what voting for this proposition would achieve. I also want to be clear about what this legislation does not do. This legislation does not affect the teaching of religious education. This legislation does not prevent schools from including chapel or prayer in the timetable. This legislation does not prevent religious schools from setting out reasonable requirements on their students in accordance with their beliefs and values. The legislation's not about bible colleges training people for missionary work or priests and ministers. I recognise that almost all religions are engaged in education as part of their weekly worship and their community life—its core business—and that will continue. This legislation does not release any of the thousands of straw-man and slippery-slope arguments of political correctness gone mad. This legislation is neither a Trojan Horse nor a Pandora's box. It is neither an insult on Western Judeo-Christian society nor the expulsion of faith from the public square. It's a simple change driven by unarguable basic decency. It's something the parliament can pass today with support from all sides. I understand that the Prime Minister did not vote for marriage equality; he's always clear about that. But he has publicly and repeatedly said that he supports protecting kids from discrimination. So has the Treasurer. So has the Attorney-General. So have many more government members—frontbench and backbench, Liberal and National. It would be a better and stronger statement of respect and equality if this law were passed this week, with the support of the government, the opposition and the crossbench—in fact the major reason the legislation as drafted deals with the question of discrimination against students but not teachers. I've already said that Labor supports protecting teachers and school staff from discrimination on the basis of sexuality, marital status or pregnancy. I don't believe that any Australian should be denied employment because of who they are or whom they love. A teacher's marital or relationship status, sexual orientation, gender identity or pregnancy has no correlation with whether they are a good person or a good teacher. But I recognise that there isn't yet quite the same degree of consensus in the parliament on this question. So, rather than seek to use this as a wedge or to cause division or as a bargaining chip in negotiations, Labor is prepared to prioritise students immediately before the parliament rises. And I will seek a private member's bill, dealing with protecting teachers and staff from discrimination, in the first sitting fortnight of next year, following the school holidays. This will be done in a way that ensures that schools can continue to make employment decisions in line with their beliefs. In this specific context, and across the board, Labor has repeatedly said that we're open to a discussion about how religious freedom could be better protected in this country. But surely the starting point for anything the parliament does with regard to this must involve the release of the Ruddock review. It reflects poorly on the government. They've held the review from Labor, from the parliament and from the people of Australia for seven months to try and gain some political advantage from something as deeply personal as people's faith. Labor believes that this is a situation where religious organisations can teach according to their faith, but that we can have a situation which doesn't authorise discrimination against teachers or students. We don't have to have a situation where people on the basis of their sexuality are accused of being able to impinge upon other people's faith. It is not an either/or. This is another issue which a substantial majority in this parliament agree with each other on, but the determination of some in the government to play politics runs the risk of getting in the way. Therefore, we'll rise at the end of the week for, as has widely been noted, quite some time. I'm sure that every member of the place, when they're back in their local community, will hear from people who are frustrated and bewildered by politics at the moment. I'm sure, like me, honourable members have heard on more than one occasion, 'Surely this is just a bit of show on television—colour and movement.' We say back, 'Most of the time parliament is a productive and cooperative place.' Actually, that does happen to be true on many occasions, but today is an opportunity to restore people's faith in our system. Let us not tie ourselves in knots trying to manufacture a fight on this argument. The schools don't need this exemption to discrimination laws. They don't seek this exemption and we shouldn't be arguing about it here. We don't need to complicate the process with needless amendments raising issues, which are not in contention, dressed up as questions of principles. For that matter, let us not waste a minute arguing over whose signature goes on the front page of this bill. If the government want to match this mirror legislation exactly as we have it, they can sign the bill. There's currently a bill in the Senate, and we're happy to look at that too. This shouldn't be too hard. Let's change the law before the House adjourns for 2018 and before school starts in 2019. Politics can be a complicated business; today is a simple test of our decency. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded? Ms Plibersek 83M I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate made an order for the next day of sitting. National Integrity (Parliamentary Standards) Bill 2018 27

National Integrity (Parliamentary Standards) Bill 2018

First Reading 27 Second Reading 27 10:43 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill, National Integrity (Parliamentary Standards) Bill 2018, is a part of a package of bills to promote public trust and confidence in the integrity of parliament, the public sector and our system of government. The package is about creating a culture of integrity, a proactive and solutions focused approach to preventing corruption. This package will implement option 3 of the Transparency International and Griffith University paper Strengthening Australia's national integrity system: priorities for reform. The bill will operate alongside the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018, which I introduced into this place last week. The bill incorporates aspects and builds on the work of others. I'd particularly like to acknowledge the work of the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests in their 2011 report Draft code of conduct for members of parliament, in the 43rd Parliament, and the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in their 2015 report Recommended benchmarks for code of conduct applying to members of parliament. The intent of this package is to create a nationally coordinated integrity framework, with an emphasis on prevention, supported by strong powers of investigation to enable criminal charges or other actions in response to cases of corruption. What will the bill do? This bill focuses on values and a code of conduct. The bill sets out the values parliamentarians hold, as well as a code of conduct. This includes having respect for others regardless of background, dealing with conflicts of interest, using position for profit, outside employment, accepting gifts or hospitality, use of influence and use of public resources. The code requires that a parliamentarian must ensure that their conduct, as a parliamentarian, does not bring discredit upon the parliament. The values and code of conduct are based on the recommendations of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), of which this parliament is a member. The CPA recommendations are based on extensive research, including by Queensland's Fitzgerald royal commission, the UK Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life, and original research on codes of conduct, commissioned by the CPA, led by Adjunct Professor Ken Coghill. The bill places the register of interests into legislation, and these are unchanged. This move is ahead of further reviews to lobbying and post-separation employment and regulation of donations and campaign regulation, that are established by this bill. The intent is to eventually have all parliamentary integrity functions operating under a single framework. The Parliamentary Integrity Adviser will be established as an independent office of the parliament. Their role will be to provide independent confidential advice to parliamentarians and our staff about ethics of integrity issues. This model is based on the work of the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests in the 43rd Parliament and on the operation of the Queensland Integrity Act. The Parliamentary Standards Commissioner will be an independent office of the parliament. Their role will be: to investigate alleged or suspected breaches of a code of conduct, including a parliamentary code of conduct; at the request of a minister, including the Prime Minister, investigate alleged or suspected breaches of the ministerial code of conduct; and at the request of a presiding officer or a committee of a house of the parliament, investigate and report on any matters related to ethical and integrity standards among parliamentarians or our staff. The commissioner will be independent and report through the relevant privileges committee or minister or the Prime Minister depending on the origin of the referral. The Parliamentary Standards Commissioner will have the power of the Auditor-General in conducting investigations. Any person will be able to make referrals to the commissioners, but the commissioner can determine how to deal with the referrals. If there is a question of corruption beyond a breach of a code of conduct, the commissioner may refer the matter to the National Integrity Commission. The drafting of this bill was a collaboration with some of Australia's leading thinkers strengthening the integrity of parliament. I acknowledge the assistance of the Hon. Dr Ken Coghill, born in Mansfield in my electorate and former councillor at Wodonga, both in the Indi electorate. He is an associate professor at Monash University and an adjunct professor at Swinburne University. Ken is a member of the government's Open Government Forum, founding member of the Accountability Round Table and former speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria. He was lead author of the code of conduct recommendations adopted by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I also acknowledge the work of Professor AJ Brown and Transparency International and thank them for their support in pulling together this package of reforms. Without their support we would not have been able to put together such a simple but comprehensive package. I would also like to acknowledge House of Representatives legislative drafter Olivia Gossip. I cannot speak highly enough about the support given to us by drafters. But to Olivia Gossip: thank you for the hours, the time, the energy and the professional skill you have brought to this bill. I acknowledge my own staff, who have worked long and hard on this work, but I particularly acknowledge my political and parliamentary adviser, Jeremy. Thank you very much for your work. All the bills presented today, and the work, have been done with those two, in particular, excellent staff. But, colleagues, what I really want to say in bringing my comments to a close is: what will it take for this parliament to introduce a code of conduct and surrounding legislation? We have been at this since 2012. We on the crossbench know how important it is. Our communities know how important it is. Industry knows how important it is. To think that we operate in this House without a code of conduct, without an understanding of what it actually means to be a politician and without the resources that we need to get advice on sometimes very tricky ethical issues and then, if need be, to take steps further on corruption! To me, it's an absolute no-brainer. I say to the government: what will it take for you, in this term of parliament, to do what everybody's asking of you—to step up to the plate and to give us the legislation we need? I know you find it difficult. I know, government, you want to argue with me about definitions, but we're up for that. We're grown-ups. We're happy to have the debate in this parliament, but we need our colleagues on the other side to step up and to front up to the fact that we haven't got a code of conduct and that we need one. I'd now like my colleague from the crossbench, the member for Mayo, to make her comments in support of this as a seconder of the motion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded? 10:51 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I am pleased to second this motion for the second reading of the bill of the member for Indi, the National Integrity (Parliamentary Standards) Bill 2018. There is a huge body of work that she has done with this bill and also the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018. This is important. At some point, this place needs to step forward and do the right thing, because right now the Australian public thinks very little of us—all of us. They lump us all in the same boat whether we spend $38,000 on our internet at home or not. They think we are all the same, that we all have our snouts in the trough and that all of us here are self-serving. They believe we are guided by self-interest, vested interests or the interests of our donors. They believe this is a horrible place to work—a place with bullying and poor behaviour. Every time I meet with a school—and I meet with at least two schools a week—after I've given a talk about what it's like to be the member for Mayo and how exciting this role is, I say to the students: 'Would you like to be the future member for Mayo? We need people with a heart and a mind.' No hands go up. They believe this is not a good job. They want to have a job where they're respected. Unfortunately, the behaviour of many people in this place has let all of us down. I commend the member for Indi for this work. This is a huge body of work. If we want the Australian community to trust us again, if we want the Australian community to believe us again and to hold us in high regard, then we need to do the work in this place in order for this to happen. I the urge government and opposition: get behind this. We can't continue to have stories in the media where people are accepting free flights, bags of Rolexes or, as I said, $38,000 worth of internet that they just happened to pay back so it's all okay now. No, it's not okay. Our behaviour in this place needs to lift. We need to treat each other with respect and we need to treat the Australian community with respect in order for that to change. So I commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to working with parliament on it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Coal-Fired Power Funding Prohibition Bill 2018 29

Coal-Fired Power Funding Prohibition Bill 2018

First Reading 29 Second Reading 29 10:53 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I rise to introduce the Coal-Fired Power Funding Prohibition Bill 2018. This bill is as environmentally responsible as it is economically responsible. A primary aim of this bill is to assist in the reduction of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by preventing the Commonwealth from actively assisting in the construction of new coal-fired power stations, extending the life of existing coal-fired power stations or helping purchase new coal-fired power stations, but it will also protect the Commonwealth and the Australian taxpayer from unnecessary exposure to the significant financial risk associated with providing financial support to potentially stranded assets. It also protects from exposure associated with underwriting of the carbon risk of new coal-fired power generation, which may be significant if a future government takes steps to limit greenhouse gas emissions. This bill should not be necessary. If we had a government that took its fiscal responsibilities seriously and took its duties to the taxpayer seriously, as well as taking climate change seriously, it would not be necessary. And if we had a government that behaved in an economically responsible manner and was willing to put in place a sensible climate and energy policy, or indeed any climate and energy policy, this bill would also not be necessary. But instead it seems that we have a government, on the eve of an election, rushing to hand over large amounts of taxpayer money to either increasingly unreliable and economically unviable ageing coal-fired power stations or, worse, funding a new coal-fired power plant. It is clear that the Prime Minister, who once hugged a piece of coal in this very chamber, is well and truly in the clutches of the climate-denying bullyboys who've hijacked the coalition's energy policy. This is all taking place in the context of a changing global and national energy market that's being transformed by the twin technological revolutions of digitalisation and clean renewable energy with storage. This transformation has already made new coal-fired power stations economically unviable and is rapidly replacing the energy production of existing coal-fired power plants. The Energy Market Operator has a plan for this transition, following the blueprint set out by the Chief Scientist, and there is no role for new coal-fired power plants or extending existing coal-fired power plants in this plan. Any new coal-fired plant or a plant with an extended life risks being a stranded asset with the taxpayers losing our contribution. But the risk to the taxpayer doesn't end there. The government has also flagged the possibility of indemnifying coal plants from a future carbon price or from other policies to limit emissions brought in by a future government. This potentially open-ended liability for taxpayers is an irresponsible concoction from the coal-power-obsessed minority in the coalition that tore down a previous Prime Minister and now wants to booby trap climate and energy policy for future governments. We don't have to look far to see how dangerous to the taxpayer such an eleventh-hour attempt to bind a government can be. We saw in my state of Victoria what happened with an outgoing coalition government rushing to sign contracts for the East West Link toll road despite the opposition and incoming Labor government making it clear that they opposed the project. The result was more than $1.1 billion in cost to the taxpayer, because of the scrapping of the project. We now face a similar prospect with the government's rush to sign contracts to underwrite coal-fired power stations. The reality is the whole world is moving away from coal-fired power. Solar and wind are now cheaper not only than new coal-fired power but than existing coal as well in many instances. Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates the cost of renewables dropped by a fifth over the last year and will reach parity with existing coal in the next two years. The most recent IPCC report from the world scientists says the world must retire two-thirds of its coal plants in just over a decade, by 2030, and close the rest soon after. They warn that unless we accelerate the transition away from coal we face catastrophe. But the government shows no sign of behaving responsibly. If the government is not prepared to behave responsibly then this power sharing parliament must act. The underwriting or the indemnifying of new or existing coal-fired power plants by the government must be prevented by this parliament, because the government has made it clear that they potentially want to sign up some of these contracts over summer and we cannot allow this to proceed. That is the responsible thing to do, and that is what this bill will do. The bill This bill will prohibit the Commonwealth or an associated Commonwealth body from providing financial assistance to coal-fired power plants in a number of respects. As I said before, a primary aim of the bill is to assist in the reduction of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by preventing the Commonwealth from actively assisting in the construction of new coal-fired power stations, extending the life of existing coal-fired power stations or helping purchase new coal-fired power stations. The bill will also protect the Commonwealth and the Australian taxpayer from unnecessary exposure to the significant financial risk associated with providing financial support to potentially stranded assets. It also protects from exposure associated with what the government has flagged, which is the underwriting the carbon risk of new coal-fired power generation, which could potentially be very significant if a future government takes steps to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Upon commencement of this bill, the Commonwealth must not provide financial assistance for the building of, refurbishment of, or purchase of coal-fired power stations. This includes the provision of indirect assistance, such as through the underwriting or guarantee of someone else's financial obligations. Exemptions are provided to permit the Commonwealth to exercise its usual regulatory processes, to provide support to workers and communities affected by power station closures, to fund research related to coal-fired power stations generally or to manage the closure of coal-fired power stations. Section 4 of the bill defines authority of the Commonwealth as an entity or company under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and any other body established for a public purpose under the law of the Commonwealth. Section 5 prohibits the Commonwealth or an authority of the Commonwealth from providing financial or other support for the purpose of building or refurbishment of a coal-fired power station. The Commonwealth is also prohibited from purchasing or assisting in the purchase or transfer of ownership of a coal-fired power station, but there are some further limited exemptions to that. Importantly, 'support' in this bill includes those kinds of matters that we know the government wants to press ahead with, potentially over Christmas—those outlined in the government's Underwriting new generation investments consultation paper, as well as other kinds of support, including: direct payments, loans, underwriting of agreements, including between purchasers of power and the builders or operators of coal-fired power generation, the issuing of government bonds, contracts for difference, guarantees of a 'floor price', equity in a company, capacity payments and indemnity from carbon risk. But the bill through section 5 goes on to set out a number of important exemptions including making it clear that the Commonwealth is not prohibited from exercising its usual regulatory functions with respect to coal-fired power stations. It's also clear in subsection (3) that the Commonwealth is not prohibited from providing transitional assistance to workers who are affected, or who may be affected, by the closure of coal-fired power stations. This is important and something the Greens have been pushing for for a while. We need an authority and we need financial support for those workers and communities that are going to be affect as coal-fired power stations close and we replace them with renewables. The Commonwealth will also continue to be permitted to fund research by an approved research institute, provided that the research relates to coal-fired power stations generally, and not a particular coal-fired power station. Of course, the Commonwealth through subsection (4) may assist in managed closures of coal-fired power stations. No matter what political crisis the government may have got themselves into, responsible governments should not play fast and loose with taxpayers' money on the eve of an election just to try to save their skin or to paper over internal differences. They should also not be so fiscally irresponsible as to bind future governments to shell out taxpayers' money to big power companies if they decide to change energy policy. There are many things that this government could have done and still could do to address the problems of climate change and the energy transformation facing our nation. But propping up ageing coal-fired power stations is not one of them and neither is giving taxpayer money to what will inevitably be a stranded asset in the years to come. I am sure if the government was willing to see sense in this power-sharing parliament we would be able to work constructively together to put in place the actions that are needed. In the meantime, unless the government can shrug off the irrational fear of the energy transition promulgated by the Luddites in its ranks it is up to this parliament to prevent the damage they might do on the way out the door. We still believe it would be possible under a future government to walk away from any deals that the government has made, but the much better way of protecting the taxpayer interest, and the economically and environmentally responsible thing to do, is to not to enter into them in the first place. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded? Mr Wilkie C2T I second the bill and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Live Animal Export Prohibition (Ending Cruelty) Bill 2018 31

Live Animal Export Prohibition (Ending Cruelty) Bill 2018

First Reading 31 Second Reading 31 11:05 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In essence, the Live Animal Export Prohibition (Ending Cruelty) Bill 2018 would end all live sheep and cattle exports from Australia in three years time, in 2021, and in the interim would put in place much tougher safeguards to help reduce the cruelty in the export industry. I have tabled this bill in this parliament a number of times before and it has never gained the support of the government or the alternative government. It is indeed regrettable that I need to stand here again to table this bill, because we have a very serious animal cruelty problem and it remains unaddressed. In essence, the live animal export industry is a cruel industry and, by now, we have seen countless exposes of that cruelty—the cruelty on the export vessels and the cruelty suffered by, in particular, beef cattle and sheep once they reach their markets. We've seen exposes of cruelty in countries as diverse as those in South-East Asia, in places like Vietnam and Indonesia—many times in Indonesia—and in South Asia, in places like Pakistan. Who could forget that shocking footage of Australian sheep being buried alive in Pakistan? And then there are all the exposes out of the Middle East—a whole range of countries there—and in countries there that we might not expect, like Israel and Turkey. Indeed, in the time I've been in this place, there have been countless exposes—so many exposes that it is clear that there is systemic cruelty in the live animal export trade and that the only way to end the cruelty is to end the trade. What we saw on the Awassi Express recently was awful cruelty being suffered by tens of thousands of Australian sheep on a vessel in which more than 2,000 sheep died. That wasn't a one-off. That wasn't just a rogue exporter or a rogue operator of one bad ship. That was a snapshot of what is typical in the live animal export trade. It is systematically cruel. It's also not in Australia's best economic interest. Every time we send a vessel with thousands of beef cattle or sheep overseas, we're sending the jobs overseas that could have been established in Australia to process those animals in a more carefully regulated way in which any cruelty would be minimised or removed. We send those jobs overseas; so it's not in Australia's economic self-interest. It also ruins our reputation. Being a Tasmanian, I'm very, very alert to the importance of a state or a country's good reputation as a producer of clean, healthy food that is produced ethically. So how can we, on one hand, go into overseas markets to try and sell ourselves and sell our agricultural produce when it's just as likely that we are going to see the people we're talking to on the news that night as a result of another expose on how we treat our animals and how our governments are prepared—almost happy, I would say—that animals are treated that way on those vessels and when they reach the export markets? Apart from the fact that the live animal export industry is systematically cruel, apart from the fact that it's not in our economic self-interest because we send jobs overseas and apart from the fact that it ruins our reputation as a producer of food stuff to world markets, it just doesn't have public support. How many polls do we need to see before a government—any government—gets that people hate the live animal export industry? Sure, there are hundreds of farmers and thousands of others in the industry who benefit from the industry. But what about the 25 million Australians? What about the vast majority of Australians? It's undeniable that when you poll people who know anything about the live export trade—and not just the long-haul sheep trade to the Middle East but also the beef cattle trade into a number of countries, especially in our region, in South-East Asia and North Asia—they say that they hate it. They hate the cruelty. They hate the fact that we're sending our jobs overseas. They hate the fact that governments—a succession of governments—are ignoring public opinion. A generation of politicians are wilfully ignoring the fact that their job is to represent their community. It just beggars belief that so many people come into this place and, when the votes are to be had, don't vote to end the cruelty; they vote to perpetuate the cruelty. Every time they do that, in just about every electorate in this country they're treating their constituents with contempt. They think they can recover their position by standing in the shopping centre a month before the next election to convince people to vote for them. And then they wonder why they're voted out or why their government is voted out. This isn't just my opinion. It was fascinating to see in The West Australian on Saturday, just two days ago, a revelation that the Australian Livestock Exporters' Council commissioned a study five years ago in which it was warned that the industry faced 'extinction' unless it cleaned up its act. So, the industry knows it's in strife. The industry knows that it's only being propped up by a succession of dodgy governments that are beholden to the industry and beholden to people in the industry. This is an industry that is not only propped up by dodgy governments but also propped up by myths, such as the myth that these exposes are extraordinary, that the industry generally is sound. But, as I've already discussed in detail, there is so much evidence that the industry is systemically cruel, that what we see on the TV are not one-offs; they're just more and more snapshots of a fundamentally cruel industry. And of course governments say, 'But in these markets they'll only buy fresh produce.' That's bunkum. It is not the case that people of some religions will buy only live sheep and cattle. It's a fact that we send almost three times, in value, more processed sheepmeat than live sheepmeat to the Middle East. That's right: the people in the Middle East, largely of the Islamic faith, are buying mostly Australian frozen and chilled processed sheepmeat—processed in Australia, employing Australians in jobs, by companies that are paying taxes in this country. So it is a myth, a lie, when people in the industry say that they can sell only live animals into those markets or that they don't have refrigeration in Indonesia or in the Middle East. Heavens: what paternalism, what racism! Of course they've got fridges; they're just like us. And it's a myth that the recent Moss review has got to the bottom of things and made hard recommendations that will clean up the industry. The fact is that although the Moss review did recommend tougher standards and tougher penalties, it still—at the end of the day, by the end of the report—came down in support of a cruel industry. That alone fundamentally discredits the Moss review. This excuse of, 'If we don't sell live sheep and live cattle into these countries they'll go and buy it from somewhere else'—do you know what? If we've got a good food reputation they'll probably switch to buying processed meat from our country. And if they do go somewhere else, well, so be it; at least we can know that we live in a country that has integrity. This nonsense, this furphy, that some farmers are solely interested in feeding the world—what bunkum! They're businesses. They're trying to make a buck. They want to have the lowest production costs. That's a myth. In closing, can I just say the refusal of a succession of governments—the refusal of the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party—to shut the industry down is a shocking thing. It's a shocking betrayal of our constituents. Well, I say to the government and the alternative government: you can start to repair your reputation. You can start to represent the will of the Australian people by getting behind this latest version of this bill, which, in essence, would give the industry three years to prepare for it, and in three years time the live export of sheep and cattle from this country would be over; it would be ended forever, as countries like New Zealand decided to do, sensibly, years ago. So I call on the government and I call on the opposition: if you care about animal welfare, if you care about representing your constituents, then this time please get behind this bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded? Mr Bandt M3C I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I thank the member for Melbourne. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Migration Amendment (Urgent Medical Treatment) Bill 2018 33

Migration Amendment (Urgent Medical Treatment) Bill 2018

First Reading 33 Second Reading 33 11:16 Dr PHELPS 008Z0 Wentworth I move: That this bill be now read a second time. There is an urgent medical crisis in Australia's offshore detention centres, particularly for those children who have been held on Nauru for as long as five years. The Migration Amendment (Urgent Medical Treatment) Bill 2018 would address this crisis by allowing for the temporary transfer of people held in offshore processing centres to be brought to Australia for medical assessment and treatment. The medical crisis in offshore detention has been worsening for a number of years, and today Medecins Sans Frontieres has released a report documenting extreme mental health suffering in offshore detention. A dossier of leaked materials in August this year uncovered shocking signs of medical neglect in Australia's offshore processing facilities, precipitated and exacerbated by incidences of violence, sexual assault, degrading treatment and self-harm. There are currently 1,224 people detained on the islands of Manus and Nauru, including, according to the latest reports, 12 children as well as pregnant women and unaccompanied minors. They have all been held in offshore detention for as long as five years. Since the #KidsOffNauru campaign began on 20 August this year, some children and their families have been transferred to Australia for medical treatment. This has occurred as a result of political pressure or at the behest of Australian courts, not through a proper process for medical transfer. A clinically led process for medical transfer of these sick asylum seekers and their families must be put in place. In relation to Nauru, medical experts who have worked in the detention centre there have issued clear warnings about the escalating medical crisis. Three former medical staff employed on Nauru blew the whistle on this crisis, warning that medical conditions are so critical that a child may die. Yet two months ago, Medecins Sans Frontieres was abruptly ordered to leave Nauru, depriving its patients on the island of specialist health services. MSF's report into conditions on Nauru, released this morning, is a shocking indictment of Australia's treatment of asylum seekers. It states that the mental health suffering on Nauru is among the worst MSF has ever seen, including in projects providing care for victims of torture. That description is borne out by a huge number of independent accounts of medical neglect, in some cases resulting in death, in Australia's offshore detention centres. There have been recent reports of a dramatic escalation of children locked up in Nauru with symptoms of traumatic withdrawal syndrome. This is a life-threatening condition where children withdraw from school and play, stop interacting and eventually stop eating and drinking. Parents are becoming desperate for help as they try to force food and water into the limp bodies of their children. The MSF report found that children as young as nine have had suicidal thoughts, committed acts of self-harm or attempted suicide. I understand there are entire families struggling through prolonged trauma, without adequate medical and psychological treatment, facing the obstructiveness of the Australian government and Border Force as doctors' recommendations for overseas medical treatment to save their children's lives have been blocked. These children are suffering not just from the trauma they have experienced as asylum seekers and refugees but also from a deep sense of hopelessness caused by them and their families being confined indefinitely. It is appalling that the Australian government has pushed children to such despair, to the point where they've lost their will to live, and it is concerning that the Nauru government has responded to such a crisis by removing a vital non-political organisation such as Medecins Sans Frontieres from Nauru. On Manus Island as well the situation is critical. A report released by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in 2016 found that the men in Manus Island detention centre were suffering from some of the highest rates of depression, post-traumatic stress and anxiety disorders in the world. Existing facilities on Manus Island are not adequate for addressing such a crisis. There is a local hospital but it lacks resources and staff. The number of mental health professionals supporting the men in Papua New Guinea has halved since the beginning of the year. We have seen 12 people die in offshore detention centres over the last five years. I refuse to see another person die in Australian funded offshore detention. We have a legal and moral responsibility to act, and we must act urgently. In a letter delivered to parliament week, 12 Australian medical colleges and 6,000 individual Australian doctors implored parliamentary representatives to urgently transfer sick children to Australia for medical treatment and to address the escalating medical crisis in Nauru and on Manus Island. I have listened to these calls. In Australia clinical need, not politics, should determine access to care. This approach should apply equally on Manus Island and Nauru. As every parent knows, if a child needs urgent medical support, access to care must be determined by a doctor not a public servant. I'm introducing this bill to address the urgent medical crisis unfolding on our watch and to follow the expert advice from Australian doctors. These doctors have overwhelmingly requested the immediate transfer of all refugee and asylum seeker children from Nauru to Australia and the provision of appropriate medical treatment to everyone in offshore detention. The bill provides for the Australian government to immediately transfer all refugee and asylum seeker children from Nauru to Australia for medical treatment. The bill will also enact a proper process for medical treatment ensuring that, when two treating doctors recommend the temporary transfer of any person in offshore detention to Australia for treatment, their orders are followed. Those who would say that by introducing this bill we are letting the people smugglers win, or inviting a flood of boats, should consider that the bill does not compel the permanent resettlement of refugees or even their permanent transfer to Australia. It does not end offshore detention. It does not contradict either of the major parties' stated policies on offshore detention. It simply ensures doctors' orders are followed in relation to the treatment of sick people in offshore detention. Regardless of opinions on offshore processing, Australia must not fail to provide critically ill people in its care —in particular, children—with urgent medical treatment, especially when the Australian government policy of indefinite detention has caused, or seriously exacerbated, physical and psychiatric illness. I will continue to work with the parliament in having this legislation passed, and, if any amendments are made, I will update this chamber accordingly. It is unacceptable to continue to ignore the medical crisis that has emerged through the lack of appropriate care and the failure of the Australian government to transfer children and adults to Australia when doctors have so clearly recommended it do so. We are better than that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I thank the member. Is the motion seconded? 11:24 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison I second the motion and I commend the member for Wentworth for the good work she's already done in this place in a very short time. Australia's response to asylum seekers is illegal in international law and deeply immoral. It is especially abhorrent that we have been locking up children and denying children and adults the urgent medical care they need. I struggle to think of anything worse than to do that—to be denying adults and to be denying children the urgent medical care that they need and, indeed, for Border Force officers to be wilfully ignoring the advice of medical professionals. Who do they think they are? What right do they think they have to be ignoring the advice of medical professionals? It's great that the member for Wentworth has brought this bill to the House today. I struggle to believe that the government or the opposition would not support this bill, because this bill is a good thing; it's a humanitarian thing. It's what the community wants. Frankly, it beggars belief that doctors are being ignored. It is a fact that Border Force officers are routinely failing to act on medical advice. We now know as a fact that most of the children that have been evacuated from Nauru this year have only been evacuated by order of the Federal Court or by threat of such legal action. So it is a downright lie from the government when they say that people are being evacuated when it is being recommended, because it is a fact that most people have only been evacuated by order of a court. And it is a lie when the government says that the asylum seekers and refugees on Manus Island and Nauru have adequate medical care, because they don't. It's probably symbolised no better than by the fact that the only psychiatrist at the Nauru hospital is a Cuban that speaks Spanish and doesn't speak English and doesn't speak any of the languages from South Asia or from the Middle East, and there are no translators on Nauru! I can't think of a better example of how woefully inadequate the health facilities and medical facilities are in those two places. It is the same on Manus, where there are hundreds of men incarcerated—and incarcerated they are; they're prison islands. I commend the bill to the House and I plead with the government and I plead with the opposition to support this bill and to get these sick kids and these sick adults to Australia quick smart. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 35 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Queensland: Energy 35 11:27 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I move: That this House: (1) recognises that: (a) many Queensland families are struggling with cost of living pressures and many small businesses are being crippled by the cost doing business; (b) the primary responsibility for lowering power prices for Queensland families and small businesses lies with the Queensland Government; and (c) the Queensland Government is ripping off everyday Queenslanders through a sophisticated scam that funnels billions of dollars into government coffers; (2) calls on the Queensland Government to: (a) immediately pass on recent reductions in wholesale prices to customers in full; (b) end the network 'gold plating', write down regulated assets and accept a lower return so that Queenslanders can be charged less; (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; (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 (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 (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. If you want a sneak preview into how the Labor Party would manage its national energy policy, look no further than its comrades in Queensland and the horror story which is the Queensland energy sector. Most times when you talk about Labor and management, you could call it out for those two words almost being an oxymoron. But there are times when, by virtue of having government, Labor are forced to manage, and in Queensland what they are showing is not just the typical habit of Labor unconscious incompetence but, in fact, wilful deceit—wilful deceit where they are effectively ripping off everyday Queenslanders to put more money into the coffers of the Queensland Labor government. This is nothing short of a sophisticated scam, involving a myriad of feedback loops, that converts money earned by hardworking Queenslanders into political power by the Labor Party in Queensland. They prey on people enjoying the opaque system that the energy market represents in Queensland. And they do so to the tune of a quarterly bill every single year for the average household—in other words, about $468 is being effectively stolen out of the pockets of everyday Queenslanders because of the Queensland Labor government's management of the electricity system. If you are wondering why these claims can be made about Queensland in particular, it's because the Queensland government controls 65 per cent to 70 per cent of the power generated in my state. It's because they operate in every single sector of the supply chain in Queensland. Nobody has more power, when it comes to energy, than the Queensland Labor government, and yet they rip Queenslanders off to the tune of a quarterly bill every single year. To put it differently, 25 per cent of your next bill, as a Queenslander, could be removed if the government stopped its rip-offs. Imagine what that would do to the pensioner who right now is sweating and finding it difficult in the heat in Queensland. Imagine what it would do to the family that's trying to get enough money together to cook the Christmas ham in a few weeks time if 25 per cent of the bill could be wiped out. So the rip-offs start, and there are three key areas where the rip-offs take place. First, the Queensland government has overinvested in poles and wires to the tune of $7.3 billion. The overall asset value is $28 billion, $7.3 of which represents an overinvestment. Why do they do this? They do this because the more they invest, the more they can charge consumers, and when you own the companies that's what happens. That is why they need to partially write down those assets and they need to accept a lower return on investment on those assets. Second, we have seen a drop in wholesale prices thanks to the pressure of the federal coalition government. From October to October, there was a 40 per cent drop in wholesale prices. Has the Queensland government passed on those wholesale prices, especially in regional Queensland where they themselves are, in fact, the retailer? No, they have not. This 40 per cent drop has been converted into 1.8 per cent, tops, which they've taken off their bill—a complete rip-off on the cost of energy. Meanwhile, of course, they've got a debt-to-dividend rip-off going on where they say to the utilities, 'You take on debt, state utility,' and then they call that money back as a special dividend, effectively laundering money, and then—wait for it!—they charge them an interest payment of 4.8 per cent on top. This is a complete rip-off by the Labor government in Queensland, which should separate its two generators into three. They should be split. It should stop paying a subsidy to only their regional retailer in regional areas and pay that subsidy to customers instead. What we need to have in Queensland is what we are doing federally. We need to take a big stick to those who are price gouging. We need to ensure we have a price safety net. We need to ensure that we back reliable energy and get rid of the Queensland rip-offs from the Labor government. That's what's required. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the motion seconded? Mr Christensen 230485 I second the motion. 11:32 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Fairfax. I agree with the member for Fairfax on one thing: that many Queensland families are certainly struggling with cost-of-living pressures and many small businesses are being crippled by the cost of doing business. It's a timely reminder that this coalition government has been in power; they're limping towards their sixth year of government. I note that house prices in many capital cities and share prices have also taken a big hit under their watch. It's an old tactic, isn't it? When you've run out of vision, when you've run out of things to do, you pick a fight with a state government. Let's look at the speaking list today. Let's have a look. In terms of the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill, there are no coalition speakers. On the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill, there are no coalition speakers. On the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill, there is one coalition speaker. But they're happy to jump up to speak about this private member's bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The member will resume his seat. The member for Fairfax on a point of order. Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 The member for Moreton is failing to address the topic in the motion. Mr PERRETT HVP What's your point of order? Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 Relevance is therefore the point of order. Mr PERRETT HVP Get out of it! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Okay. I call the member for Moreton. Mr PERRETT HVP Unbelievable! I'm talking directly to the motion put forward by the member for Fairfax, and he can't take a little bit of criticism. He's got a glass jaw. Unbelievable! I remember in 2013 when the member for Warringah, then the Leader of the Opposition, promised Australians that he would drop power bills by $550. That was his promise to the people of Queensland and to the people of Australia. What happened? Have we ever had an apology from those opposite? Have we ever had anyone stand up and say, 'I'm sorry about that'? No, we haven't. Instead, we have them hiding behind parliamentary tactics when we're talking about power bills. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order! The member for Fairfax. Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 I rise on a point of order on relevance. Two minutes has already gone and he hasn't addressed this issue. The entire motion talks about the Queensland Labor government. He's refusing to defend his comrades. I don't know what's wrong. He has 2½ minutes to go. I'm hoping he might address the topic. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 There is no point of order. Mr Stephen Jones A9B A point of order: this is intolerable. It has been the practice in this place that we don't call points of order, particularly on relevance, in private members' business. He's had his time to speak. Perhaps the member for Moreton can be allowed to have his entire allotment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 I call the member for Moreton. Mr PERRETT HVP It's great to have in Hansard, on the record,that the member for Fairfax says that the member for Warringah's promise that power prices would be reduced is not relevant in a discussion about power bills. What planet do these people live on? What planet do they live on? We know that people in Queensland are doing it tough. I've doorknocked people. I visited a pensioner just off Monash Road in Tarragindi the other day. He said in winter he had to turn his hot water system off. In Queensland, you can almost get away with that, but it broke my heart to hear it was in the middle of winter. The member for Fairfax said, 'I know that the Leader of the Opposition and then Prime Minister'—the last but one Prime Minister—'promised a $550 reduction in power bills'—a broken promise. I remember in 2018 when the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull—have you ever heard that name? Mr Dick 53517 He did a doorstop this morning. Mr PERRETT HVP That's right. The former member for Wentworth, the then Treasurer and now Prime Minister Morrison, and the current Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, promised a $550 power saving if the National Energy Guarantee was adopted. That's not ancient history. That was only a few months ago. Remember? But it hasn't happened, because their policy went up in smoke. It went through the Liberal party room after it was backed by those opposite three times, including by the current member for Hume and the member for Fairfax. They backed it three times, but then they ditched it like they ditched the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. It's a bit rich for the member for Fairfax to complain about power prices in Queensland when, for the last six years under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison-whoever government, power prices have gone up and up despite their promises. We need a Labor Party that can take control and that will invest in renewables. That's what will deliver cheaper power prices in Queensland. 11:37 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson Our use of energy in the family home, in businesses and in all kinds of industry is what enables us to live comfortable lives. It's a fundamental driver of our economy. So it doesn't take an economist to understand that higher energy costs lead to a weaker economy and that higher electricity costs result in lower productivity and less money in the household budget. It beggars belief that any government could rip off its own constituents with a massive energy tax, but that is exactly what the Queensland Labor government has done. Queensland Labor is ripping off everyday Queenslanders with secret energy taxes hidden in each and every one of their quarterly energy bills. In what The Courier Mail describes as 'a sophisticated scam run by the state government', Labor has pushed up the cost of electricity so much that Queenslanders are paying about 25 per cent more than what they should. The Queensland Labor government has the ability to lower power prices. They could pass on reductions in wholesale prices. They could write down the state energy provider's assets. They could agree to a reduction in its rate of return. They could subsidise electricity customers to make up for Labor's dodgy deals with debt. That would cut the power bill for an average family in my electorate by 25 per cent. Sadly, just because the Labor government has the ability to cut those power prices doesn't mean they will. They don't have the will, because they're using this secret electricity tax to prop up their budget. Mums and dads in my electorate and across Queensland are paying for Labor's inability to manage the books. Farmers and small businesses are paying for Labor's waste. An Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report found that the Queensland Labor government could save householders $419 a year on average by adopting some of their recommendations. That would effectively remove about one of the quarterly bills for every family across the state. While the federal government is looking for ways to bring power prices down, the Queensland Labor government is looking for ways to push power prices up. I encourage all Queenslanders to go to a simple website called energytax.com.au to see how much Labor is taxing their family budget. They can enter the cost of their last power bill and it will tell them how much of that bill the state Labor government is gouging from them. It's almost 25 per cent, which is a massive impost on mums and dads. It makes the cost of business so high that it impacts on jobs and it forces businesses to shut down or reduce in capacity. In North Queensland, the Thomas Borthwick and Sons abattoir in Mackay have got an energy bill ballooning into the millions of dollars. That's money that would better spent on employing locals, job creation and making the end product more affordable for families. Farmers are already paying exorbitant prices for power without the Queensland Labor government adding a secret energy tax on top. The escalating cost of water is made even more unaffordable when the price of electricity used to pump the water gets out of control. Unaffordable costs have already pushed the Pioneer Valley irrigation scheme to the verge of collapse. To make matters worse in North Queensland, we have only one energy provider. Such a monopoly—it's the state government mind you—means families and businesses are forced to take whatever price is offered to them. It is not unusual for a government to move to break up such a monopoly and it is probably time that the federal government take a closer look at what the Queensland Labor government has done with the energy market and what it has failed to do. While the Queensland Labor government is happy to price gouge, kill jobs and industry and make families in North Queensland across the state even poorer, I am not. I am very pleased that the energy minister and the Prime Minister have talked about considering setting up competition to the electricity market in Queensland, because we need fairer prices. We need fairer prices for north Queenslanders. I would call on the federal government to take note of the strong support for building a high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired power plant in North Queensland. Earlier this year I started a petition, which again can be signed at powerthenorth.com.au. The campaign has attracted tremendous support from North Queenslanders because, unlike the Greens and Labor, we are not afraid of coal. We are not afraid of coal. North Queenslanders know modern generators reduce emissions by up to 50 per cent. They know they're a better option than Labor's dangerous 45 per cent emissions reduction target. North Queenslanders want to see jobs in construction and in operation, and they appreciate the benefits that affordable and reliable power can bring to their family and to local jobs, because energy is what drives our economy and improves our standard of living. Outrageous taxes from the Labor Party on your electricity bill are driving down our economy, driving down our standard of living, costing local jobs and costing your family budget. 11:42 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman You'd think the member for Fairfax would have learnt by now that the people of Queensland are sick and tired of the 'blame Labor' mantra. It's galling he can stand up here in this chamber and point the finger on energy policy when his party has held government since 2013 and done absolutely nothing for power prices. This government is in its sixth year and they haven't done anything but bicker amongst themselves about whether to listen to trusted scientists and economists. On average, electricity prices in Queensland are the cheapest of all mainland states in Australia—the cheapest! In fact, the Queensland Competition Authority says that power prices have either fallen or remained stable in South East Queensland for four quarters in a row. The ACCC have acknowledged that this, at least in part, is because of the Palaszczuk government's policies, which are placing downward pressure on electricity prices. The fact of the matter is that Queensland state Labor government have been investing in affordable energy. Their $2 billion affordable energy plan is on track and more than 90 per cent—more than 90 per cent!—of the dividends received by the state-owned power assets have been invested into putting downward pressure on prices. You won't hear that from the member for Fairfax, of course. But it seems that the facts don't interest the member for Fairfax. The LNP's analysis relies on incorrect assumptions and flawed logic from the starting proposition that wholesale prices have been reduced by 40 per cent. The Queensland government's actions have certainly put pressure on wholesale spot prices, which have fallen 21.7 per cent between 2016-17 and 2017-18. But the author of this motion, the member for Fairfax, should know that spot prices do not correlate directly with expected reductions in household bills. Queensland power assets compete in a national energy market to sell power. Consequently, they need to be competitive, and their cost structures, including their staffing, need to reflect a commercial reality. Further to this, the Australian Energy Regulator regulates Queensland's power network, including just how much revenue it can make—interesting. Again, you won't hear that from the member for Fairfax. It's because Queensland has fought against the LNP's goal of privatising our power networks that the Queensland government can invest the dividends from these businesses to make electricity more affordable. Clearly the member for Fairfax has forgotten about Campbell Newman and the LNP government in Queensland. Ask Queenslanders what they thought of that government. There is no need to plead with boards or CEOs interstate or overseas for profits to be returned or reinvested into Queensland. But the member for Fairfax chooses to ignore absolutely all of this. Instead, he's just lazily pointing his finger. After five years, we are still waiting for a federal policy from this government. The reality is that the federal Labor Party have instead stepped in and crafted sensible policy from opposition—a policy of cheaper energy, cleaner energy and reliable energy, and a policy that means working with states and private companies, not fighting with them. It involves listening to scientists and economists to create a forward-thinking plan that acknowledges the life spans of our pre-existing power stations and complements them with technologies like renewable energy generators and energy storage. It's true that we've never been the biggest fans of the National Energy Guarantee, but, if it means something finally gets done, we're happy to work with the government to get this passed. If that's what it means, let's do something and get this passed. It's time that this government put aside its petty politics and sought to find a way to compromise within its party and its party room so that regular Aussies finally get a go. It's time the Liberals actually showed some leadership. It's time they showed up, took some initiative, took some action and put downward pressure on power prices, just as Queensland's state Labor government has done. I would suggest it would be fine if they just showed up. As we heard the member for Moreton say, there are not too many speakers today. Maybe they could just show up. That might be a good start. I'd suggest that, if this government doesn't take action now, what's going to happen come election time is that the voters are going to be pulling out a big stick for it. 11:48 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I want to thank the member for Fairfax for bringing this motion to the House, because not only does it give me an opportunity to talk about the failure of the current Queensland state Labor government but it also reminded me of a previous Queensland state Labor government, led by one Peter Beattie, who promised that prices would fall under his privatisation of the retailers. But we've seen that, ever since that occurred, prices have increased. On that note, I'd like to congratulate the Minister for Energy, Angus Taylor, for his work in seeking ways to reduce electricity prices, because, at the end of the day, we know that we have an economy that is based on power and, most importantly, based on reliable, affordable power. Business in this country relies on reliable and affordable power to ensure that it can manufacture and produce the goods necessary both for Australians here locally and for our export economy. We require cheap and affordable power to ensure that we can compete on an international stage—that our products are competitive. We require cheap and affordable power to ensure that our households can turn on their lights and power their air conditioners. As the member for Fairfax rightly pointed out, at the moment in Queensland we are having some very hot weather and we need people to be comfortable that they can turn on their air conditioners when they get home from work, or, if they are elderly people, that they can afford to have their air conditioners on during the day. That is why this motion is so important. I know firsthand, and I have seen firsthand in my electorate, the gold-plating of the electricity network by a state Labor government. There was a project put together in my electorate through Logan Reserve, Chambers Flat and Logan Village that was complete and utter gold-plating. At the time, people in the local community who had a background in the electricity industry put a number of alternative proposals to Energex that would have been half the cost of what was ultimately put in place by Energex. That is just one example locally in my electorate, but I'm aware of plenty of others across the state where those things were also done. In relation to the issue of gold-plating, we know that this government has passed legislation to prevent the power companies and the networks price gouging on those gold-plated networks. But the worst part of all in relation to this motion, and in relation to Queensland in particular—the electricity companies—is that 70 per cent of the distribution, the generation and the transmission is owned by the state government. So they have been direct beneficiaries of these gold-plated networks and, in addition, they've been direct beneficiaries of the fact that the operators of those networks have sought to get returns over and above the regulated return that was originally approved by the Australian Energy Regulator by appealing those decisions. This government has put new rules in place that prevent those energy companies from appealing the decisions of the AER, in order to reduce the cost of those energy networks. I again thank the member for Fairfax and I call on the Queensland state government to use the opportunity they have as the 70 per cent owner of transmission and distribution across the state to reduce electricity prices, as the ACCC report has pointed out, potentially by some $419 a year, which is roughly a quarterly bill—but also, as we've seen now in another report today, a potential increase in the profits of AGL and Origin, for them to take a hit as well. (Time expired) 11:53 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I have been looking forward to this debate. It is like Christmas has come early. What does it say about a government that has stopped governing, has stopped turning up to work, and whose only policy announcement for today is to criticise a Labor state government? It says everything about the shambles of a so-called government led by the current Prime Minister. It was best summarised by Laura Tingle on the weekend in the Financial Review, who wrote: There aren't many occasions in the past 30 years when a government has so comprehensively lost its political and administrative bundle. That says everything you need to know about this government. Today, the member for Fairfax wants to point to energy policy as a matter on which this government has some authority. We know they've jumped from one position to the next. Depending on which day of the week or the weather for the day, we don't know what their position will be. What we haven't heard a lot about in today's energy debate is the abandoned so-called signature policy, the National Energy Guarantee. We know the Prime Minister has said through all the course of this year that that policy had a broader base of consensus than any other proposition he had seen in his 10 years in parliament. He and the Treasurer reminded households pretty much every day that delivering the National Energy Guarantee would result in a cut in their power bills of $550. I'm going to read a quote into the Hansard that was made about the National Energy Guarantee. It's this: The National Energy Guarantee will lower electricity prices, make the system more reliable, encourage the right investment and reduce emissions without subsidies, taxes or trading schemes … Who said that? Was it anyone in this chamber? It was. It was the member for Fairfax who made that comment. Bagging out his own policy is one thing; flip-flopping on his own government's policy is another. But instead they've junked their signature policy—which, in their own words, would lower prices—to come up with this so-called big-stick policy. This has gone down so well that media reports today say: The move has prompted the Australian Energy Council, Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia and others to join together to appeal to the government to abandon its plans, which it says will "specifically discourage badly needed investment in the energy sector". Time and time again we have made an offer to work with the government on the National Energy Guarantee because, in their own words, it's the best way to bring the government's energy crisis to an end. The member for Fairfax draws the attention of the House to power prices under the Queensland government. He doesn't reference anything to do with his own government, because we know there is nothing for them to reference—no plan, no ideas; nothing that the government have provided in the last five years. If the government could stop ripping themselves apart for 10 seconds instead of talking about themselves, bagging each other out, doing doorstops against each other—former prime ministers, current prime ministers, ex prime ministers, future prime ministers, all bagging each other out—they might want to listen to what has happened in Queensland because, thanks to the Palaszczuk Labor government, we have the lowest prices in the country. Why is that? It is because Queenslanders own their electricity assets. There's someone very quiet in this debate today in this chamber who has not said a peep. That's the member for Groom, trying to keep his head down, trying to keep out of this frame, because the member for Groom speaks with authority about assets in Queensland. He was a minister in the Newman government, which attempted to sell Queensland's essential assets. What happened to them? They were thrown out of office, rejected by the community, rejected outright. The largest swing against a sitting conservative government in the nation's history occurred under the member for Groom's watch because they had such great ideas when it came to policy! We know their only agenda was to cut, sack and sell. If the member for Fairfax, the member for Bowman and the member for Groom had had their way, Queensland's essential services and assets would have been sold off. So we will not be taking any lectures from any members from the LNP in Queensland when it comes to lowering prices in Queensland, because, under the Palaszczuk Labor government, we have the lowest energy prices. Rather than attacking that government, I would take a lesson from the Palaszczuk government, listen to what that government is doing to deliver a— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order for the day for the next sitting. BILLS 41 BILLS Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2018, Excise Tariff Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties at Manufacture) Bill 2018, Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2018, National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2018, Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 2) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Sector Regulation) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018 41

Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2018

Excise Tariff Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties at Manufacture) Bill 2018

Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2018

Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 2) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Sector Regulation) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018

Assent 41 MOTIONS 41 MOTIONS Morrison Government, Women in Parliament 41 11:58 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Sydney from moving the following motion immediately—That the House: (1) notes that the: (a) Member for Hughes has threatened to quit the Government and move to the crossbench unless his Liberal Party preselection is protected; (b) Prime Minister is tearing the Government apart to protect the Member for Hughes but did nothing to protect the Member for Ryan, the Member for Gilmore, Senator Gichuhi or the Member for Chisholm; and (c) Minister for Women has said the Liberal Party is widely seen as "Homophobic, anti-women, climate change deniers"; and (2) therefore, reprimands the Prime Minister for only ever protecting the men in his party and abandoning its women. The Prime Minister has just returned from the G20. It was good that he was able to make it, because the Treasurer didn't. We saw the very entertaining photo of German Chancellor Angela Merkel with her cheat sheet introducing her to, I think, the seventh Australian Prime Minister that she's dealt with—the cheat sheet: 'Who is this guy? Why is he here?' You can imagine that briefing note. It starts with a little section, 'Who is he?' Well, he's the former Liberal Party machine man, a former advertising man, sacked by tourism minister Fran Bailey. He's the former advertising guy who came in as Prime Minister, flicked the switch to vaudeville and doesn't know how to flick it back. I've said before, he is like a cross between Darrin from Bewitched and Ted Bullpitt from Kingswood Country—so confused about the world around him, so angry about the change that he sees and so worried about his job that he can't do a thing right. The briefing goes on to say, 'What's he done in politics?' Well, he was the Treasurer who presided over the doubling of Australia's debt. He's the Treasurer who presided over historic low wages growth. He's the Prime Minister who was prepared to use the Israel-Palestine conflict, in the final week before the Wentworth by-election, to try to win a few extra votes. He's the guy who thought it would be a good idea to send a bus with his face on it around Queensland to show how in touch he is with the concerns of ordinary Queenslanders—and then caught the VIP jet to each place where the bus was stopping. It's a good backdrop for a Twitter photo; but if you're going to use the bus, you really ought to use the bus. And that briefing note goes on: 'What's he like? What's his personality like?' And there's a little briefing for the chancellor. Well, they would have had photos of the many moods of Scott Morrison—Scott Morrison angry, Scott Morrison irate, Scott Morrison furious and Scott Morrison really browned off. The many moods of Scott Morrison would have included the photo of him being angry when he ate that pie. Who can get angry when eating a pie? It's one of Australia's favourite pastimes, and he was angry even when he was eating a pie. The conclusion of that briefing note would have been, 'Beware: this man is in thrall to the reactionary right wing of his party'—as the member for Chisholm calls it—or the 'homophobic, anti-women climate change deniers', as the member for Higgins has said. The final 'beware' is: if he puts his arm around you and says, 'I'm very ambitious for this woman,' then run! When the member for Ryan—an assistant minister, no less—was dumped, the Prime Minister went on Insiders and said about her preselection: … it is a contestable process, politics, and this has been a rank-and-file pre-selection and we're all subject to those as members of parliament. He also said: Politics is a contestable process and in the Liberal Party there are no quarantines on that. Well, I guess there are two qualifications on that. If you're a bloke, if you're ring wing, you get your pre-selection fixed up, you get it sorted out—if you're a bloke and if you're right wing. Tough luck for the member for Ryan, because she was replaced by a bloke. The member for Gilmore was also replaced by a bloke. The member for Chisholm was bullied until she left the party and was prepared to leave the parliament. As for the member for Curtin, well, thank you to the now Prime Minister for the wonderful support he gave the member for Curtin! Eleven votes—he didn't do the numbers for her; he did the numbers on her. More than a quarter of women in the Liberal Party have now said that the Liberal Party has a problem with women, that there is bullying and intimidation and a culture that is hostile to women in the Liberal Party. And what's the Prime Minister's response to that? 'Nothing to see here; no problem.' He's not investigating it—doesn't even pick up the phone to the member for Chisholm, as we heard on the weekend; he doesn't even bother to give her a call. When you look at the Prime Minister's experience of his own preselection, he was able to sort out his own preselection pretty well back in the day, wasn't he? But when he ran for the seat of Cook in 2007, the former numbers man managed to get eight votes out of 152. I mean, that in itself raises questions, doesn't it? And the fellow who actually won at the time, Michael Towke, was subject to an anonymous smear campaign against him, with four defamatory articles appearing in the newspaper. After relentless pressure, he finally gave up and signed a deed with the party saying that the party would publicly acknowledge him to be a fit and proper person but he would not run for preselection—and, in fact, he had to support the now Prime Minister in his preselection. That's how you sort it out, isn't it? That's pretty well done! He could have done that for the member for Gilmore or for some of the other women—if he was really interested. The member for Cook has been very keen to say, 'It's all about merit.' It's hilarious, isn't it? When Alex Bragg stepped aside from the Wentworth preselection, saying a woman should be preselected, the Prime Minister said: I'm a merit person and the Party members will decide our candidate in Wentworth. …   …   … … of course I want to see more women in the Federal Parliament. …   …   … We have not done as well in that area as I'd like us to do, but the Party members are the ones who have to take on that responsibility. They're the ones that have to make those decisions. He's a 'merit guy' and he believes in rank-and-file preselections—unless it's the knuckle draggers and the Neanderthals of the extreme Right that he's protecting. In that case, of course, he's all for intervention, and merit takes on a pretty new and interesting definition compared to the way I have previously seen this word used. We've got the member for Hughes—or the member for Sky News, as he's been called—touring the country with the member for Warringah running forums called 'Back from the Brink: Saving Australia from the Left's agenda'. Left also has a slightly different definition in their world than it does in ours. The Left are obviously people who believe in climate change—those dangerous radicals who listen to the science! The member for Hughes has said in the past that people will die during winter because of renewable energy. He's talked about non-existent subsidies to electric cars, claiming they create more pollution than diesel. He's twice gone to Azerbaijan, courtesy of the poor old put-upon Azerbaijani taxpayer, to inspect their electoral system—which he tells is actually better than the Australian electoral system. He's quoted in their media as saying he had witnessed 'a coherent, democratic process' and 'an election campaign that surpassed Australia's experience'. Well, it probably surpasses the experience in Hughes, where Liberal Party preselectors have lined up to make it clear that they want a change, that they don't want to be represented by the extreme Right in this parliament. These are normal, average, centrist Liberal Party members who don't want to be represented by the Neanderthals and the knuckle draggers. Why don't they get a say? Why don't they get a say in who represents them? Malcolm Turnbull, the former Prime Minister, said on Twitter today that: … to deny Liberal Party members in Hughes the opportunity to have their say— is a problem. They're being ignored. When even Malcolm Turnbull is pointing out that Scott Morrison, the member for Cook, is too weak to stand up for what he believes in, you've really got a problem. When the man who, as Prime Minister, couldn't back a single thing that he said was a priority for him now says his successor is weak, you know we've come to a pretty pass. There are, at most, 166 days to the next election; we're wasting another one with Liberals talking about themselves. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the motion seconded? 12:09 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I am very pleased to second the motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. You couldn't have a better example than the example we had over the weekend of the problem this once-great Liberal Party has with women. I thought it was a joke. We saw over the weekend the member for Hughes saying that he was going to the crossbench; he was threatening to do so if his preselection was threatened. Then you had the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister who tells us that it is all about merit in this great Liberal Party—saying that he was prepared to intervene. If this is a Liberal Party of merit, you would have thought, when you had the member for Ryan's pre-selection threatened—someone who has been in this place for a long period of time, and a woman of merit—that the Prime Minister would have said, 'Actually, we want to keep the member for Ryan. We want to step in and intervene here. We know that we want to keep the member for Ryan.' But, no, the Prime Minister did nothing. Ms Rowland 159771 The member for Gilmore. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR 'The member for Gilmore,' I hear members say. The member for Gilmore has been here contributing for some time. Mr Shorten 00ATG A gift! Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR A gift to the nation, as my leader reminds us. Again, the Prime Minister says, 'I don't have a lot of women in our show. This is about merit. She's been there for a while. She's won the seat in trying circumstances. You know, let's support another woman.' No. Ms Rowland 159771 Lucy Gichuhi. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Again, Lucy Gichuhi—I'm getting lots. There is well and truly a list here. Lucy Gichuhi is making a contribution over in the Senate. Does the Prime Minister intervene? No. The Prime Minister does not intervene on a single one of these preselections. When any of the women on their side come under pressure for preselection, does the Prime Minister intervene? No. Suddenly, there is a need for an intervention for the member for Hughes. 'Why?' you would have to ask? The guy is a bloke, for a start. The guy is a right-wing bloke, second. Clearly, they don't have enough of them. The Prime Minister makes the decision that the one person in this place in the Liberal Party whose preselection is challenged and who deserves his protection is the member for Hughes. The member for Hughes does not believe in the science of climate change. He likes to appear often and regularly on Sky News. I must admit I'm surprised he has time to do anything else, given that he's on Sky News all the time. The member is one of the most right-wing reactionaries in this place, and that is saying something, given some of the people that they've got and some of the people over in the Senate. This is the person that this Prime Minister believes has to be protected in preselection. If you are a woman on the other side of the chamber in the Liberal Party—one of the very few that you have to have—you would have to say, 'What do I have to do to be recognised by this Prime Minister as someone who is making a substantial contribution to the Liberal Party? What do I actually have to do?' You've then got their behaviour to the member for Curtin, who now is on the backbench. She was a foreign minister of some standing, one of the people who has obviously been in substantial positions within this government. What did they do to the member for Curtin? What do they do for the member for Chisholm when she raises that you have a problem within your political party about the way in which you are treating women—not just the way in which you're recruiting them but the way in which you're abandoning them when their preselections are challenged? What is it that you are doing to actually promote and change this culture? The signal that has been sent loudly and clearly today to every woman in the Liberal Party, to every woman who supports the Liberal Party, to every woman who is here in this parliament today is that, if you are on the Liberal Party side, this Prime Minister will not be on your side—not today, not ever. This is what we've seen over the course of the weekend. The only person who is set to have the challenge to their preselection overturned by this Prime Minister is the member for Hughes. You're got to ask: what on earth has happened to this Liberal Party under this Prime Minister? He has got no capacity to actually stand up to the right wing of his party, whether it be on policy or whether it be on the promotion of women here in this parliament. 12:14 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston We should be clear about what this motion is doing— Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order! The minister will be heard in silence. Mr TUDGE M2Y because this motion is wanting to suspend standing orders in order to allow the Labor Party to play Canberra politics. That is what this is about. Those who are listening in to this broadcast should understand exactly what a suspension motion is about. It's about the opposition coming in and attempting to change the ordinary business of the day. So what are they suspending from discussion right now? Mr Dick interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The member for Oxley is warned! Mr TUDGE M2Y Are they concerned about what the next debate is on the agenda? Mr Dick interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The member for Oxley! Mr TUDGE M2Y Let me tell the listeners and let me tell this chamber exactly what they have interrupted from being debated. The next item on the list to discuss is, in fact, a bill in relation to family and domestic violence. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order! Members, there is far too much noise. Mr TUDGE M2Y So the Labor Party are coming in to suspend standing orders because they don't want to discuss family and domestic violence. That is what they're doing. After that bill is completed there is a higher education support bill on the agenda to be discussed today in this parliament. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order! The minister will resume his seat. There is far too much noise in the chamber. The minister will be heard in silence. I call the minister. Mr TUDGE M2Y They clearly don't like having it pointed out to them what they are doing. They want to have a debate on Canberra internal politics, the inside games which go on this building, which they love so much, yet they don't want to debate domestic violence, they don't want to debate higher education support and they don't want to debate the next item after that—Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory. These are the three items on the agenda to be debated today; but, no, the Labor Party come in here, full of bluster, to try to suspend all that debate so that they can discuss the internal, inside party political games which go on in this building. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Ms Plibersek 83M It's extraordinary— Mr Tudge M2Y What is the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 What is the point of order? Ms Plibersek 83M If you'd let me finish the sentence you'd find out. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The minister will continue. Mr TUDGE M2Y Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The minister has the call. Mr TUDGE M2Y As I was saying, what is on the agenda for today is family and domestic violence— Ms Plibersek 83M I haven't made my point of order yet. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. Mr TUDGE M2Y As I was outlining, Mr Deputy Speaker, what is on the agenda today is family and domestic violence, higher education and an Aboriginal land rights amendment bill. These are the bills which are scheduled to be debated today, yet the Labor Party come in here and try to suspend this debate in order to have a discussion about internal games in this place. That's what they're about. That is what they are focused on: the internal games which the Australian public are sick of. They're sick of the internal games. They want us to focus on the things that matter to them. Ms Claydon interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order, Member for Newcastle! Mr TUDGE M2Y There are items on the agenda today which do concern everyday Australians. Family violence is a very important topic and it should be debated today. Higher education support is a critically important topic and it should be debated today. Aboriginal land rights is a very important topic, particularly in the Northern Territory, and it is on the list to be debated today. There are all sorts of other topics which I know the Australian public are far more interested in discussing than the internal games that the Labor Party want to discuss. That's what they're about. Let's be clear about what this suspension motion is. This suspension motion is— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The minister will resume his seat. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Ms Plibersek 83M Thank you. I have a point of order. The minister is misleading the parliament. He's talking about wanting to speak on these bills and yet the Liberals have only one speaker all day on any of these bills. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 That's not a point of order. The minister will continue. Mr TUDGE M2Y Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Again, we have another interjection from the Labor Party. They don't want to discuss the important matters on the agenda which Australians want us to discuss. I mentioned three of them. The other topic which is critical and which we are discussing today is national security. One of the big topics in relation to it is encryption law, which we are discussing publicly. They would be welcome to come in and discuss this as well. The Australian people want us to focus on the things that matter to them. They don't want the Canberra bubble games, which is what the Labor Party want to suspend standing orders to discuss. Of course, the Labor Party don't want to discuss national security. They don't want to discuss the economy. Why would they want to discuss the economy when we have delivered a million jobs since coming to government, when we have delivered five per cent unemployment and when we have delivered the lowest proportion of working-age people on welfare in 25 years. That's what we are delivering, and these are real, substantial things to everyday Australians, and that's what we are focused on. It is those things which everyday Australians want us to focus on. It is the economy, and it is creating jobs. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TUDGE M2Y Those opposite constantly interject when we start talking about jobs figures, when we start talking about national security and when we talk about Aboriginal land rights. Again they're all shouting out because all they want to discuss is the Canberra bubble politics. Well, I'm going to continue to focus my efforts on the things which are important to Australians. I want to use my remaining time to discuss, for example, the infrastructure program, which I have some responsibility for rolling out across the country. Ms Claydon interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order! The member for Newcastle will leave under 94(a). The member for Newcastle then left the chamber. Mr TUDGE M2Y We have $75 billion worth of nation-building infrastructure being rolled out across the country, the greatest commitment that a federal government has ever made. That includes, of course, massive projects which have been on the agenda but never delivered but which we are finally delivering, such as the Western Sydney Airport. That is absolutely going to be a game changer for Western Sydney. This is what this government is focused on: projects like that. We're focused on key projects in Melbourne, my home city, such as the Tullamarine rail—again a project which has not been done for five decades. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned. Mr TUDGE M2Y Yet we are putting $5 billion on the table to get this done. We're also doing other key infrastructure projects, particularly a couple more examples in Melbourne. One is the rail link out to Monash University and then out to Rowville. Monash is Australia's largest university campus. Fifty-five thousand students attend that campus, but it doesn't have a rail link to it. We are going to deliver a rail link to that Monash campus, and in doing so we will remove the buses which presently go every couple of minutes between Monash University and the closest railway station, the single busiest bus route in Australia. That's what the Australian public, including the 55,000 Monash University students, want us to focus on: delivering real-life things like a rail link to the Monash University campus, a rail link out to the airport in Melbourne and building the Western Sydney Airport so people in Western Sydney can get closer to an airport, creating enormous capacity and enormous economic opportunities as well. That's the type of thing which they want us to focus on. Of course, soon we'll have an urban congestion fund which we will be announcing to really address those localised hotspots. Often it is really small projects in people's electorates that people are concerned about. For example, in my own electorate, one project is a $6 million bridge, the Henderson Road Bridge. It will make a huge difference to about 10,000 to 20,000 people who presently live in Rowville and Lysterfield, who at the moment have only Stud Road and Napoleon Road to go north and south. This provides an additional alternative. These are the real-life things that we should be concentrating on and that we are delivering. What are the Labor Party doing? They're in here. They're playing their games. They're constantly interjecting as I'm speaking, because they don't like to hear the fact that we are delivering jobs. Mr Husic 91219 End the Tudge fudge! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order! The member for Chifley is warned. Mr TUDGE M2Y We are delivering infrastructure. We are delivering national security measures. We're delivering safe borders. We're delivering record amounts spent on health and education. We're delivering record numbers of drugs being put on the PBS. Those are the real-life things that people want us to focus on and that we are delivering. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:28]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

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

Question negatived.

 COMMITTEES 47 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 47 Report 47 12:34 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Inquiry into the management of PFAS contamination in and around Defence bases. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr LAMING E0H by leave—The Senate referred the inquiry into the management of PFAS contamination in and around Defence bases to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in December 2017. It followed the release of the expert health panel report into the potential human health effects of PFAS exposure, exposure that needed to be minimised as a precaution. This report contains significant recommendations and has a focus on improving the government's response to this issue, particularly in relation to concerns of affected communities that the subcommittee visited. As a medical practitioner, what really struck me was that the uncertainty around health impacts appeared to have stalled progress towards just resolution of cases for affected residents. As we report in detail, that equity trap that was independent of health impacts could take years or decades to resolve. In the report, we have recommended that a coordinator-general be appointed with the authority and resources necessary to more effectively coordinate the whole-of-government effort in respect of PFAS contamination. A coordinator-general would ensure a clear and consistent approach and also a level of separation in dealings between the Department of Defence and the affected community. It would allow community consultations to occur not just with federal and state governments but also local government. The committee wanted to see an improvement in voluntary blood testing because this is our key source of longitudinal information—not that the blood tests in and of themselves tell us anything about health outcomes, but they track the important ability of this organic chemical that is persistent by ingestion through the gut for those that have lived in various periods of time in contaminated areas. Obviously the goal is to look for long-term health impacts of exposure to PFAS and the effectiveness of the ways in which we break PFAS exposure pathways. The committee found it was really important to collect this data assiduously, that medical practitioners themselves shouldn't be taking systematic solo flights on who they test and who they don't but that testing should be freely available to that target group and that we work on making that coverage as high as possible. This important data needs to be connected with international studies that are doing exactly the same thing, because in Australia, in a relative sense, these numbers are quite small to be able to detect, with power and a high level of robust methodology, health impacts that may still be years away from being picked up. These relatively small numbers of tests need to be able to be added into international studies to increase the odds we have a satisfactory sample size to be able to make an assessment of any possible future PFAS contamination health impacts. The committee also recommended that the soil testing that is done around these affected aquifer areas be more publicly available. There is sensitivity around the impact on property values. There is some concern that testing done on private land should only be added to that database in an opt-in arrangement. But the management area plans that are being developed by the Department of Defence are incredibly important for peace of mind, for people to understand exactly what areas are at risk and over time, because this movement of contaminated aquifer can occur at a particular rate by distance per year that can be measured and, in some cases, predicted. In many cases what this committee found, as committees before us have found, is that property owners in PFAS contaminated areas have suffered demonstrable and quantifiable financial losses. At this level, like the reports before it, the committee has found a case for compensation. This is not a sequel of the 1997 movie The Castle. What we've seen is that ordinary citizens have been driven to organise, to conduct research and to develop significant expertise to try to understand the long-term, flow-on effects of contamination, of which they are of no part, and they desperately want to be heard. And it should not take years of campaigning at this level, which is incredibly personally draining, before they can have a sense that their concerns are being adequately addressed, particularly in communities where that feeling is experienced as a group. These people were not speculators. These people were not seeking a quick bit of profit by buying in a smart location. Many of these people that the committee heard from had purchased with the intention of staying forever. They had purchased to enjoy life on acreage. They had purchased to be able to capitally improve for their next generation, for their own family. Some of these stories are quite graphic. Britt Osborne, if I could name one, made a $400,000 investment in a water park only to discover, weeks before opening, that this had occurred on land that was known to local authorities and Defence as being contaminated. Moving for me personally was a former friend from my own electorate who moved to the contaminated areas around Medowie and who purchased land just six weeks before the news broke, putting all of his wealth into land that he was unable to sell or borrow on to purchase somewhere else. If you'll excuse the vernacular, Deputy Speaker, there's an expression out there. It says, 'Shit happens to good people.' But this is not something that they should have to bear alone. It is hard to imagine a more frustrating example than having an environmental contaminant leach from next door into your own property and being left to sort it out for yourself. Justice delayed is justice denied. There will be a long period, I suspect, before we understand the full health impacts of PFAS. The reasons for using PFAS couldn't be more critical. This is the fastest possible way of extinguishing fires in air bases to protect the lives of our service personnel and civilians who work on airfields. It's not a throwaway line to say, 'Find a non-PFAS alternative.' We know they're out there, but it can make the difference between life and death. The management of this product has created challenges, known since the turn of the century. But coming to a point where we're confident enough to be able to find a solution has taken way too long. Adding in the half-life of PFAS—years and years after exposure, it is still detectable in blood and tissue—creates this horrible wait to know whether your choices simply on where you elected to settle down—to rent or buy or to run a business—are going to have an impact on your children. We cannot answer the health questions today, but what we can see is that, while the strict legal liability of damage may be a very hard case to definitively prove in the absence of health evidence, there is an unequivocal case for the nuisance that has been brought on these properties and the property value implications that have led to what we refer to as the equity trap. That is as clear as day. We have a free market economy where we can turn to not only property sales in areas but also valuers-general around the country who are responsible in those areas for defining falls in property values. The equity trap is quite simple. It's a circumstance where the value in your own asset is so low it's impossible to pay off the loan if you elect to sell. If you are lucky enough to be able to do that, the equity trap means that the bank may not fully recognise the value of your property as equity and part of the LVR to purchase somewhere else. For these reasons, often people are trapped. Even more disturbing is that many asked their family to come and join them, live in paradise and purchase a property nearby. Entire families' wealth is caught in these contaminated areas. Residents deserve an opportunity to pull together a factual basis for what has happened to them and for it to be considered on face value, in good faith and in good time. The committee found as we visited each of these areas that these properly functioning property markets told a very different story to the experiences of property owners. In many cases, only an open on-market sale will get you that answer. We believe that a combination of professional valuation, market testing and bringing the factual basis of individual complaints in a non-litigated way is an option for moving forward, and we know that there are already over 40 of these cases before the Commonwealth. No family should be trapped on contaminated land. Families shouldn't be prevented from selling because of the effects of a pollutant for which they are not responsible, simply because the polluter is unable to meet their part of the bargain to make that sale possible so that people can be airlifted from the red zone. All of the mental health services and all the social support services aside, if responses had been more timely, as this report notes, there wouldn't be the need for those services. On behalf of Senator McCarthy, Ms Swanson and Senator Moore—those who went around the country—I'd like to thank and pay tribute to the members of those PFAS affected communities right across the country who made submissions to the inquiry. This is not an easy process. They gave evidence and they have given evidence before. The hearings in Katherine, Williamtown and Oakey gave the subcommittee a very strong feeling about the intensity of emotion that has built up over years as residents sought justice. These communities are hurt and they're angered. Many people didn't come and front the committee when we did visit and we wish we could have heard from them. But the delays and the inadequacies in finding justice have done enormous damage to those living there and their families. Cleaning up PFAS contamination isn't simple. The technology isn't quite there to cost-effectively remediate contaminated soil. Pumping water out of aquifers is unlikely to be a job that's ever completed—water scrubbed and then returned to the water supply. But I trust that this report honours the efforts of the local residents to bring these issues to us, and also the individual federal officers, in particular Steve Grzeskowiak and ChrisBirrer, who have been part of consultations with each of these affected communities and have worn an enormous amount of emotional frustration from the communities, and rightly so. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is a global treaty which also captures PFOS. The convention requires parties to take measures to eliminate or reduce the release of these pollutants into the environment. The convention was adopted in 2001 and entered into force in 2004. Australia, while a party to the Stockholm convention, which we ratified in 2004, was subject to a declaration by which any amendment to chemicals included would need to be individually ratified, and this is where PFAS falls. Australia is yet to ratify the listing of PFOS or any other chemicals that have been added to the convention. In October two years ago now, the Department of the Environment and Energy released a regulation impact statement. Many will recall that that pointed out that of the four options presented, ratifying the listing of PFOS under the convention and phasing out all non-essential uses would achieve the greatest reduction at the lowest cost. This consultation closed earlier this year. PFOA isn't yet listed under the Stockholm convention, but in October 2017 it was recommended that the council of parties to the convention consider the listing of those chemicals. Doing this, of course, requires all states to agree. Two states so far have banned the use of PFAS but the rest are to arrive at a position. That is utterly essential before we can go further. I thank everyone for their participation and I urge the government to take note of the report. 12:47 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson by leave—I'd like to briefly speak on this report. I didn't realise I would have the opportunity. I would like to thank the member for Bowman for his chairmanship of this committee and also Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, who acted as our formal deputy chair. I'd like also like to thank the member for Newcastle, the member for Brand, the member for Lingiari, and the people who have participated and are here in the House today for the tabling of this committee report. I welcome this report and I would urge the government to formally respond as urgently as it can to this report. There is no secret in this House that I have championed my community of Williamtown, who have been to hell and back over this issue, and continue to do so to the current day. This is an issue that has torn at the very fabric of people's lives, not only their investments and money but also their bodies and their families. It really has struck at the heart of their very existence. I would urge the government to urgently formally respond, and put together a coordinated effort so that we can move forward. I would say to the member for Bowman: thank you for chairing the committee. You were the only member of the government who attended the committee meetings and who attended the hearings. I would say that this government now needs to act with a level of urgency. They need to formally respond to this. They have now had the carriage of this for three years. We need to see this move forward and we need to see an official response from them, because no community, whether it's my community or any other community, should be put through what we have been put through for the last three years. 12:49 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari by leave—I thank the member for Bowman—not something I often do—and Senator McCarthy for their leadership in this PFAS contamination inquiry. I thank all those who have participated. I also acknowledge the member for Canberra, who has been part of the discussion inside the Labor Party around these issues since the onset of the PFAS debate. I speak here as the member for Lingiari. Lingiari has the Katherine Air Force base in it. The Katherine community have suffered dreadfully as a result of the PFAS contamination. I think it's important that I acknowledge here that the RAAF personnel on the ground have been extraordinarily good in working with the local communities wherever they are. I know the Tindal CO has been really fantastic in communicating and working with the community. Defence has a huge role in this, as we all know. I note that there's a bit of obfuscation about who wears what responsibility, but let's be very clear about it: Defence have primary responsibility. I want to acknowledge Steve Grzeskowiak, who the member for Bowman mentioned, for his preparedness to work with communities and to explain what he doesn't know as well as what he does know. He's been very open and honest about saying to people: 'We don't know the answer to your question. We just simply don't know.' The member for Bowman made a point about the lack of knowledge around the long-term impacts of PFAS and PFOS. People who have identified that their property value has fallen through the floor are extremely frustrated. They've seen produce they have grown be affected by these chemicals. That has had an impact on their families. Those of us who have had the great fortune of working with these people and talking with them can identify and empathise with their concerns, but ultimately we—that is, the parliament and the government—have to come up with some solutions to their issues. I note the comments made in the report about whether there should be some process for compensation. I note also that there's further work to be done in this space. We need to assure people that we will make sure that their water supply is clean and safe. I commend the government for the work they have done on the Katherine water supply, but, nevertheless, we have a real problem with the aquifer and people using water from the aquifer. We have learnt that we didn't know a lot. We are learning a great deal more each time they sink a well in the ground. They can understand what the impact has been. They said that north of the Katherine River this wouldn't be an issue. Well, it turns out it is an issue. The member for Bowman spoke about blood tests. There were real issues in getting people access to blood tests in the first place. It is important that people understand the impact of this on them and, if they have queries, we try to have them addressed. Those of us who have had an interest in this know that the science is yet to be determined on a great deal of this, as the member for Bowman has said, but people's concerns need to be allayed. I go back to this report and thank all the members of the committee for their diligence and application, particularly my friend Senator McCarthy, who co-chaired the committee with the member for Bowman. This work has been very important for this parliament. Whilst I acknowledge that other members of the government weren't involved, I do thank the member for Bowman for his participation, diligence and application in coming to a conclusion. If the government is prepared to pick up the recommendations, work with them and respond quickly to the parliament then people will feel a damn sight happier than they do today. 12:54 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 50 12:55 Mr LAMING ( E0H Bowman ) ( ): I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Public Works Committee 50 Report 50 12:55 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the committee's report entitled 4/2018: Referrals made August and September 2018. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Dr McVEIGH 125865 by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the committee's fourth report for 2018. The report considers four proposals referred to the committee in August and one referred in September. The first project is the CSIRO Myall Vale new cotton breeding research facilities project. CSIRO has operated a cotton research facility at Myall Vale near Narrabri in New South Wales since the 1970s. As one who worked in the cotton industry prior to coming to this place, I can attest to the fact that these facilities support the conduct of cutting-edge research in support of Australia's cotton industry. If this is to continue, the research and laboratory facilities there need to be upgraded and modernised. The estimated cost of the project is $17.9 million, excluding GST. The second proposal is the Land 200 Tranche 2 Battlefield Communications Systems Facilities Project proposed by the Department of Defence. This project will construct training facilities at seven locations around Australia in support of the introduction of a new battlefield communications system. This new communications system will provide to the Australian Army modern information technology that links sensors, weapons systems, commanders and their personnel, and these facilities will help to ensure that Australian Defence Force personnel are effectively trained in its use. The estimated cost of this project is $24.3 million, excluding GST. The third proposal is the Naval Guided Weapons Maintenance Facilities Project, at Defence Establishment Orchard Hills in the western suburbs of Sydney. This project will construct an integrated weapons facility that will provide the Department of Defence with fit-for-purpose facilities to conduct necessary maintenance on its naval guided weapons. These weapons have evolved significantly since the commissioning of the existing surface weapons complex at Orchard Hills, and the current and future maintenance needs of these weapons has exceeded capacity. The estimated cost of this project is $95.5 million, excluding GST. The fourth proposal is the Land 4502 Phase 1 Additional CH-47F Chinook Facilities Project at RAAF Base Townsville, also for the Department of Defence. This project is necessary following the acquisition of three additional Chinook helicopters, which the 5th Aviation Regiment does not have the facilities currently to effectively support. The project will deliver hangars and support facilities, which are vital to maintaining the Chinooks in Townsville's salt-laden tropical environment. I thank the Department of Defence representatives for hosting the committee's site inspection in this regard. The estimated cost of this project is $49.9 million, excluding GST. The final proposal is the Defence High Performance Computing Centre project at Edinburgh Defence Precinct in the northern suburbs of Adelaide. This project will deliver a fit-for-purpose data centre to house a supercomputer for the Defence Science and Technology Group. This facility will support the cutting-edge research conducted by the Defence Science and Technology Group in support of its mission to enhance Australia's defence and national security by mitigating strategic and operational risk and maintaining a capability edge. The estimated cost of this project is $68.8 million, excluding GST. The committee found merit in all of these projects, and has recommended that the House find it expedient that they proceed. I'd like to take the opportunity of my first statement to the parliament as Chair of the Public Works Committee to thank my predecessor, the honourable member for Wright. His efforts as chair have obviously greatly assisted in ensuring that public money being spent on construction works is spent effectively and efficiently, and I wish him all the best in his new role as Assistant Minister for Roads and Transport. I would also like to thank my fellow committee members for their service. It has been an honour to join this committee and to work alongside the deputy chair, the honourable member for Makin. This committee operates in a very bipartisan manner, with members from both sides taking a cooperative and collegiate approach to scrutinising the expenditure of taxpayers' money. Their experience and knowledge has been vital to the operation of the committee, and parliamentary oversight of the Commonwealth government construction works is greatly enhanced by the diligence of my fellow committee members. I look forward to continuing to work with them to improve our work, to improve our effectiveness, as a committee of this parliament. I commend the report to the House. BILLS 51 BILLS 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, Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2018 51

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

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2018

Assent 51 Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 52

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

Second Reading 52 13:02 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gorton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. 13:02 Mr HART 263070 Bass In fact, I was planning to speak in continuation, since I was speaking earlier last week regarding the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018, to observe the fact that this government appears to have a problem with women. We've had since then a motion to suspend standing orders. The defence to the suspension of standing orders was not that the government didn't have a problem with women but rather that this side of the House, the Labor Party, didn't want to speak about important matters that were before the parliament. That defence was absolute nonsense because there are, by my count, 32 speakers on this side ready to speak on government legislation—32 speakers from Labor ready to speak about issues that are important to the Australian public—and only one government member who is prepared to speak on any legislation today. So that defence obviously fails utterly. We have a government that doesn't take women seriously. We have a government whose own Minister for Women has indicated that the Liberal Party is 'anti-women', if she's been correctly quoted. We have a Prime Minister who has different priorities. He prefers to attend other events within this parliament rather than to attend the family violence event Our Watch. Back to the point at hand: the vital issue of family and domestic violence. I was talking, before I was interrupted, about the costs of being involved in domestic and family violence and what it costs to leave an abusive relationship. The costs of leaving an abusive relationship can be significant, they can be immediate and they can be long term. The costs will include relocation—including lease-break costs, costs to repair damaged furniture and/or a damaged tenancy, and the cost of finding alternative accommodation—medical and counselling bills, increased transportation costs, including loss of access to a car, and lost earnings. The ACTU has placed a total figure in the typical case at approximately $18,000. Postdoctoral research fellow Kate Farhill has noted the considerable disadvantage flowing through a victim's life. It can adversely affect lifetime earnings. Some studies from the United States show a 25 per cent loss in income associated with domestic violence and abuse. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that around two out of three women who experience domestic violence are in the workforce. There can be no doubt that a comprehensive response to domestic and family violence must involve a workplace response. Other jurisdictions have introduced paid domestic violence leave. Labor believes that Australia's federal workplace system should also provide support and a workplace entitlement. In July this year New Zealand legislated paid family and domestic violence leave, guaranteeing 10 days paid leave for all workers who are experiencing violence and need to escape. Queensland, Western Australia and the ACT all offer 10 days paid domestic violence leave to their public service employees, whilst South Australia offers 15 days and Victoria 20. Many employers also provide paid family and domestic violence leave to their workforce through their enterprise agreements. More than 1,000 enterprise agreements approved under the Fair Work Act between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2017 provide for 10 or more days of paid domestic and family violence leave. These include flagship companies such as Carlton & United Breweries, Telstra, the National Australia Bank, Virgin Australia, IKEA and Qantas. These employers are to be congratulated, as they have paved the way and helped reduce the stigma that often accompanies domestic and family violence. The union movement is to be congratulated for its campaign for paid family and domestic violence leave over many years and for its role in negotiating domestic leave coverage in Australian workplaces. Labor knows that many small businesses, where employers and employees have close working relationships, already provide the important support for staff to take paid leave to deal with the consequences of domestic violence. We know that, in addition to the terrible personal and social cost of domestic violence, it is a significant cost to business. In May 2016, KPMG estimated the cost of violence against women and their children on production and on the business sector at $1.9 billion for 2015-16. Labor has listened to victims. Labor has listened to front-line workers, businesses, unions and organisations who are at the forefront of domestic violence prevention. Their clear message is that people who have experienced domestic violence need more support in the workplace. We all benefit from a range of social supports. Social isolation creates and perpetuates many problems, including psychological and physical health issues. For some women, their workplace provides a vital support mechanism. Work colleagues and empathetic employers may be the most important support they can receive in this situation. They can also provide an important oasis away from conflict. The government's response, whilst welcomed, has its shortfalls. I'm concerned, yet again, that this bill is 'too little, too late' from a government which is increasingly seen as completely out of touch. The Liberals do not support paid domestic violence leave; they should do so. This parliament should support paid domestic violence leave. I commend the bill to the House. 13:09 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt On White Ribbon Day I joined the Women's Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services of Western Australia, together with Starick services and many others, in the silent march through Perth city. The march was the largest in its history. Following a shocking year of violent deaths in Western Australia, that's hardly surprising. This year 28 women, children and men in WA have lost their lives in domestic homicides. That's 28 individuals who won't be at the dinner table this Christmas. One death is too many. The killing of 28 people at the hands of loved ones is a tragedy. At all levels of government and in all areas of the community, more needs to be done to ensure a coffin-free 2019. I've spoken in this place many times about my previous work with Starick services and the important work it does in my community to provide safe places for women and children who are escaping domestic and family violence. I've spoken in this place many times on the need for adequate funding for women's refuges. Only last sitting I told this place that, because of the $2.4 million funding cut at the hands of this government, the future of a number of domestic violence services in Western Australia had become uncertain. I told this House that fortunately the McGowan Labor state government has stepped in to ensure—at least for the moment—that those services can continue to operate in my community and across Western Australia just a little longer. But it shouldn't stop there—it needn't stop there. This responsibility should not lie with the state government alone, nor solely with the federal government—or with any one area of our community. We require a multidisciplinary, multiagency and whole-of-community approach if we're going to ensure a domestic-violence-free future. That is why Labor announced last week that it will restore the funding for the Safe at Home program that has been discontinued by this federal government. We understand the need to ensure a safe place for people who are fleeing family and domestic violence and also to ensure that that place can be their own home. Labor also commends this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018, for the changes it will make to the National Employment Standards to provide all employees with an entitlement to five days of unpaid family and domestic violence leave. This legislative change will provide an important workplace entitlement to an additional six million people, which will affect predominantly women, though not exclusively women. The provisions of this fair work amendment will ensure that it will apply to all employees, including casuals. It will be available in full at the commencement of each 12-month period rather than accruing over the course of a year. It will be available in full to part-time and casual employees, regardless of the number of days or hours worked. With all of this in mind, we of course do not oppose bill. But this bill requires more than words, more than rhetoric. We must demonstrate that we actually care. This bill falls short of Labor's commitment, made almost a year ago, that a Shorten Labor government, if elected, will introduce 10 days of paid domestic violence leave, and this will be written into all modern awards. For working women, it is essential that paid domestic violence leave is available so that they and their children can reach that immediate safe refuge and rebuild their lives while maintaining their job support network and without fear of financial ramifications, because we know that domestic violence is predominantly gendered. We know that it's women who are usually financially implicated when it come to carers duties—not to mention women who are already concluding their working life with without half the retirement-age savings as men. Of course, the leave will be available to victims of domestic violence regardless of gender. Domestic violence is no minor issue. One in three women have experienced some form of physical, emotional or sexual abuse by a current or former partner. One woman a week is killed as a result of domestic violence. That number is unconscionable. It is a national tragedy. It is one that receives a lack of attention given the size and scale of this problem. But it is not just a women's issue. It is an epidemic that does not discriminate by pay grade, socioeconomic status, geographic area or age. In a study released just this Friday, it was revealed that many opinions on domestic violence remain astonishingly archaic. A concerning proportion of Australians believe gender inequality is exaggerated or no longer a problem. This is an issue that cannot be swept under the carpet. Reports of abuse continue to climb. Indeed, the reporting of domestic violence incidents in Western Australia is most prevalent in my community. As such, those suffering at the hands of loved ones should not be deterred from seeking refuge or seeking assistance by the financial implications of missing work, so that they can look after themselves and their children. We know that the most dangerous time for a woman is when she is leaving a violent relationship. She will need to find new accommodation and security, put in place legal arrangements and seek treatment for injuries. The last thing that she or her family need to worry about is keeping her job or how she's going to be able to pay the bills to keep financially above water. I applaud the efforts of the union movement, which has already been successful in negotiating enterprise agreements that cover about 30 per cent of the workforce. I wish also to applaud the companies who have chosen to implement 10 days of domestic violence leave, without any legislative requirement. Companies such as Qantas, United Breweries, Virgin and Telstra and also many state governments have already taken this step. What they have chosen to do and undertake will make a positive impact on countless lives—the lives of individuals and the lives of families. Whilst moving forward, we don't expect there to be a massive uptake of all 10 days of leave across the board; however, we do acknowledge its importance to those who need it. It will make a valuable difference to their lives. Economically, providing paid leave makes sense. The financial impact of implementing 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave is indeed minimal. Dr Stanford in his study titled Economic aspects of paid domestic violence leave provisions revealed that such paid leave will cost a relatively modest $80 million to $100 million a year for the Australian economy. When broken down, it means 0.02 per cent of current payrolls across the country. Compared to the costs incurred from domestic violence on the Australian economy, 10 days paid leave is a logical investment. While financial investment will be required by business to make these payments, think of the costs that it will offset, like the costs of employee turnover. The increased productivity that will result is significant. This legislation would reduce absenteeism and the cost of recruitment, hiring and training of employees to replace those employees who may traditionally leave their jobs as a result of such violence. Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia have told us that the introduction of paid family and domestic violence leave will go a long way to shift general attitudes towards violence against women. It said: It may begin to address the economic inequalities and hence the core driver of violence against women, which we know is gender inequality. Critically, for those who complain or who are concerned about the cost of paid domestic violence leave, I ask you this: if the concern is the cost of the leave to support those who are clearly in the most vulnerable position in our society then maybe think about what we should be investing in instead for the prevention of family and domestic violence in order to bring this to an end. If you are concerned about the cost, let's bring down that cost by making sure that no-one finds themselves in a position where they have to call on it. It's actually the foundation that sits behinds things like Medicare. We have invested in Medicare because it helps business, it helps those who are ill to support themselves economically, because it means that, when they're sick, they can find the service and health support which they need. As a consequence, people don't have to call on their sick leave anywhere near as often. Fortunately, that sick leave is available so that they can access the services when they need them. We know that, in the medical sense, accessing medical services up-front and quickly can save people's lives down the track. Similarly, the introduction of paid domestic violence leave will mean that people can escape family and domestic violence situations, they can put themselves in a safer place, they can look after their families and they can access the services which they need so that they are not in a vulnerable position in the future. If the concern is the cost then maybe people need to start thinking about the investments which are needed to bring domestic violence to an end. Family and domestic violence is gendered, but we can all play a part in ensuring this prevalent crime is actually preventable. Family and domestic violence destroys individuals—literally destroys them. It tears families apart. It causes physical, emotional and financial suffering for the victims, their families and the people around them, including for the employers who rightly support them. If the bill is not extended to include paid leave, this legislation will fail to support the most vulnerable workers affected by family and domestic violence as they should be supported. We ask the government to amend the bill to support victims financially for just 10 days, if they need it, but when they need it, because that cost is nothing compared to the cost of the lives of families across Australia that are suffering from family and domestic violence. We would like to see further amendments to strengthen this bill and to make it do the proper work that it should, just as with the government's legislation to prevent cross-examination, which, unfortunately, is not matched with supports for legal assistant services to ensure that can actually happen as people progress through the family courts. Again, this legislation goes part of the way and is to be commended for doing that, but there is more for the government to do here. 13:20 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I'm sure everybody in this House agrees that it's a national tragedy and a national shame that one woman a week is killed as a result of domestic and family violence. The ABS estimates that two out of every three women who experience domestic violence are in the workforce, so any kind of comprehensive response to domestic violence necessarily needs to look at the workplace and incorporate a workplace response as well. The bill currently before us, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018, amends the National Employment Standards to provide all employees with an entitlement of five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave if: (a) the employee is experiencing family and domestic violence; and (b) the employee needs to do something to deal with the impact of the family and domestic violence; and (c) it is impractical for the employee to do that thing outside the employee's ordinary hours of work. While this bill is a step in the right direction, which is why Labor supports it, we certainly don't think it goes far enough. We're arguing that it should provide paid family and domestic violence leave for 10 days. It's disappointing that it has taken the government this long to move from their absolute opposition to family and domestic violence leave to their belated support for unpaid leave. I'd like to put to the House exactly what it takes to leave a violent relationship. I'd like everybody in the House to consider whether or not these steps that I'm going to outline can be done with five days of unpaid leave, because here's what you have to go through. The first thing that you need to do is secure some form of accommodation, whether that is in a refuge, if you are facing impending threat to your individual wellbeing and safety and to that of your children, or that is with a friend who'll put you up for a few days, maybe on their sofa. But, in terms of a long-term or sustainable solution to leaving and the ability to leave, you really need some place to go. Apart from sorting out your accommodation and where it is you're going to go while you're escaping from your violent partner, you have to find time to get together your personal belongings just so that you can continue to have some form of normality in your life in that interim period as you leave your violent partner and the violent situation that you're in. You may need to seek some kind of violence restraining order, and that can take several days of going to court. You may need to put in a police report. Often, at times, you'll have to go to hospital and fill in some hospital reports there, particularly if you've just been victimised. You may have to tend to some serious injuries as a result of that. If you've got children at school, you have to ensure that the school knows what's going on, so you'll have to go and make an appointment to talk to the school. You may have to take your children out of the school, if their wellbeing is also threatened. You may have to find them a different school in the interim as well. You or your children may need some counselling for trauma, alongside medical treatment. My son lost his hair—his hair just fell out. I spent three days taking him to specialists and seeking medical treatment for alopecia that was brought on by the stress and the trauma of what was going on in my relationship with his father. You will have to seek legal assistance and look at your banking and financial situation. You may have to set up a bank account and work out how your bills are going to be paid from that bank account—how you're going to extricate yourself financially from that person who is carrying out violence against you. I ask the House to consider whether any of those things can be done in five days. Speaking from experience, they can't. Speaking from experience, five days of unpaid leave just doesn't cut it, particularly when that period of finally having come to a decision to leave a violent relationship—the critical period within those first few weeks—is absolutely essential to the continued wellbeing of both yourself and your children. If a woman needs to take time off work to do these vital things to help herself, to keep her family safe and to continue to have some form of consistency so that the family doesn't continue to suffer, she should be able to count on continuing to receive a pay cheque, continuing to have that kind of financial security over the next week, two weeks, three weeks or even a month or two months that it takes to really extricate oneself from a violent relationship. Last year Labor announced that a Shorten Labor government would introduce 10 days of paid domestic leave into the National Employment Standards. Again, I want to reiterate the disappointment here that the government has refused to join us in this important commitment. I'm sure that members on both sides of the House have spoken to constituents who've been through this situation themselves, and I'm sure that if they continued to listen to those constituents and those members within their communities they would also have a better understanding of just what it takes to leave a violent relationship and just how important it is that women are supported to do that—through the legal process and also, importantly, through their workplace and the continuation of paid entitlements while they are organising themselves and securing a future life for themselves and for their children in the process of leaving a violent situation. We've listened to those victims. We've listened to frontline workers. We've listened to businesses, unions and organisations that deal daily with victims of domestic violence, and the clear message is that people who have experienced domestic violence need more support from their workplace. In conclusion to my contribution here today, I'd just like to reiterate that yes, this is a step in the right direction, but, speaking from experience, it doesn't go nearly close enough to what's needed in order to prevent family violence and to ensure that those who escape family and domestic violence are able to do so with the reassurances that they will be supported and that they will be able to build a life for themselves, having escaped family and domestic violence. Mr Zappia HWB Mr Deputy Speaker, given that it is almost 1.30, I was wondering whether we might be able to go straight into 90-second statements rather than commence another 30-minute speech on the bill that's currently being debated. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 56 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Broadband 56 13:29 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra A local charity in Canberra contacted me recently about their experience trying to connect their premises to VDSL2. The local charity asked the telco provider the question, 'Is VDSL2 definitely available at our address?' and the response was: 'VDSL2 is available at that site. Yes, that is the case.' Based on this, the local charity proceeded with the connection, but to no avail. Despite the plans showing a cable at the premises, no such cable existed. The telco provider then quoted nearly $2,800, excluding GST, to install a cable to the building. Even though the telco provider had said an NBN connection was available, suddenly an NBN connection was not available, and the expensive connection to VDSL2 was the only option. Due to the generosity of a couple of local Canberra businesses, the charity is being helped through the connection process. But my concern is that the telco provider is being rewarded after some rather questionable, dubious, commercial ethics. I've checked the NBN rollout map, and it shows that fibre to the curb is available. Telco providers need to ensure that their customer and business relations staff act with integrity and provide the best possible outcome and experience for their customers, not just price gouge. North Sydney Electorate: Floods 56 13:31 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney Last week Australia experienced the extremes of weather, with the devastating bushfires in northern Queensland and the tempest that hit Sydney on Wednesday. Residents in my electorate struggled to recall a rain event so intense and with such immediate impact. From Hunters Hill to Neutral Bay, residents woke to find houses flooded, streets and cars awash and our transport infrastructure severely disrupted during the morning peak hour. Social media lit up with remarkable photos of the impact of the intense downpour. The weather put to the test our emergency services, and we can be exceptionally proud of the way in which they responded. The professional emergency services worked hand in glove and were joined in their efforts by the wonderful volunteers of the SES. I want to thank all the personnel involved for their efforts and our local councils for what they did after the event to clean up our suburbs so very quickly. I particularly acknowledge the role of the SES. In my electorate we are well served by the volunteers of three units: Hunters Hill, Willoughby-Lane Cove and North Sydney. I have been contact with all three of their controllers—Louise Bertoni, Dale Harley and Jason Li—since those events of last week. Across the Lower North Shore, the SES responded to over 200 requests for assistance. These included at least 13 flood rescues. These were part of more than 1,000 jobs that the SES responded to across Sydney. We can be very proud of their efforts, their dedication and their professionalism, and I convey my thanks on behalf of a grateful community. Adelaide Airport 56 13:32 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I have grave concerns about Airservices Australia's intentions to cut the professional firefighting crews at Adelaide Airport. This puts staff working overnight at risk, as well as the airport itself, airport infrastructure and aircraft, and 25,000 households that surround the airport. Currently, during the curfew period at the Adelaide Airport, there is a professional career aircraft rescue and firefighting crew 24/7, and this is in accordance with CASA regulations. The airport is safeguarded by this dedicated crew of five staff, able to deploy one aviation emergency response within three minutes to any point of the airport. This provides safe and rapid intervention in an emergency situation. Airservices Australia is fully funded for the ARFF crews but has decided to put savings before safety in proposing the cuts to the firefighting crew levels at night, downgrading the emergency response cover from one officer and four firefighters to just one officer and two firefighters. Airservices Australia's cost-cutting exercise is in direct contrast with the current expansion of Adelaide Airport, with the terminal being expanded and the hotel expansion. We ask Airservices Australia to reverse these cuts that will put the public at risk. Bennelong Electorate: Schools 57 13:34 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Christmas is a time for thoughtfulness and giving, a time when people go to great lengths just to see somebody else smile. That's why we've reached out to every school in Bennelong to allow the students a chance to design the cover of our annual Christmas card. We believe that children encapsulate the true excitement and nature of Christmas, and what better way to spread that than by a Christmas card designed by the children themselves? Thank you to everybody who participated. It was great fun to look through all of the wonderful designs. We received many spectacular, creative, clever submissions—some a little bit naughty—from students from a range of schools. But there were a few that stood out. There were four semifinalists, whose designs you can find on the back of the card, and one winner, who has won the honour of being on the front of the card. The four chosen semifinalists were Isabella Luo from the kindergarten class and Danika Senger from the year 5 class of Our Lady Help of Christians Catholic Primary School in Epping; and Ria Jane from year 2 and Georgie Telfer from year 5 at the Roselea Public School. The winner of the annual Christmas card competition, however, is Chloe Bourke from Ermington West Public School. Congratulations, Chloe, and a big thank you again to everyone who participated for bringing joy and excitement to Christmas for everyone in a small but meaningful way. World Diabetes Day 57 13:35 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin World Diabetes Day was on 14 November, when numerous events drawing attention to the impact of diabetes were held around the country. But our focus on finding a cure and providing support for people affected by diabetes should not be limited to one day a year. In recent times I've been contacted by the McLeod family in my area, and I've met Damian McLeod and his seven-year-old son Julian, who suffers from type 1 diabetes. Julian, with his two younger siblings, is participating in the environmental determinants of autoimmunity trial. He has also become the face of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation's Christmas donation appeal also. From the day he was born, Julian has lived with and suffered the setbacks of type 1 diabetes, as have his parents and now his siblings. Continuous glucose monitoring has made life much better for him, but much more research is needed, and that, of course, requires funding. Type 1 diabetes affects 120,000 people in Australia. Estimates are that almost 6,400 children up to 14 years of age had type 1 diabetes in 2016. For every 100 people who have type 1 diabetes, 95 will develop eye problems, 50 will have nervous system damage and 40 will have kidney damage. Those figures highlight why we should continue our search to find a cure and why lifting national funding for diabetes research is so important. Menzies Electorate: North East Link 57 13:37 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies Last Friday I had the opportunity in my electorate to meet with members of the Bulleen traders association. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the impact on the traders of the development of the North East Link. Both the traders and I support the building of the North East Link, but what they, and I in turn, are concerned about is the devastating impact the current plans would have on the traders in Bulleen. Some hundreds of businesses and, indeed, more than 1,000 jobs would be affected under the current plans, which are for a vast, spaghetti-type interchange replacing the business community hub in Bulleen in my electorate. What the traders would like to see is a redrawing of those plans to a scale which would allow the North East Link to be constructed and at the same time preserve as many of those businesses as possible. For example, something that would preserve one-third of the businesses is moving the site of the drilling equipment, and the soil that comes out of the tunnel before it's moved elsewhere, to land north of the river rather than in Bulleen, where the business traders are. Some of the Defence land at Simpson barracks is a possibility for that purpose. But, one way or another, something must be done to save these traders and their businesses in Bulleen. Bendigo Electorate: Afghan Community 57 13:38 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Last Friday in my electorate, the Bendigo Afghan community organised a candlelight vigil, and Zahir, who is a member of the community and a refugee himself, wrote a few words for me to share with you today on just why they'd organised this candlelight vigil. He said that many Afghan people living in Bendigo are Hazaras, an ethnic minority group from central Afghanistan. They have been subject to persecution and discrimination for many years, which is why many of them have left. They have been deliberately targeted by the Taliban. The Hazara community of Bendigo have lost many that they loved in brutal attacks just in the last couple of weeks, not to mention the last couple of years. This vigil allowed the community to come together to recognise those that they have lost but also to raise the issue in our community and to help educate others living in Bendigo about what's happening in their previous country. With these systematic attacks on schools, homes and mosques, the death toll is rising and it's likely to be the deadliest in several years. I stand with our Bendigo Hazara community and I stand with the Afghan community of Bendigo—a 250-strong community of families united, working together, to raise the issue both here and overseas. Waratah Beach Surf Life Saving Club 58 13:40 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan Surf lifesaving clubs become the hub, the nurturing, of our coastal communities during the summer months. From Bass coast through to Prom coast, summers at the beach are made safer by the vital work of our local communities and our surf lifesaving clubs. This weekend I visited one of Australia's greatest beaches, Waratah Bay, and had the pleasure of being part of the Waratah Beach Surf Life Saving Club's raising of the flags to mark the start of the season. I want to sincerely thank the club for the work they do each and every year in protecting our community. The board of the club include Rob O'Brien, long-serving president; Adam Clark, treasurer; Natalie Ashdown; Aiden Moriarty; Daniel Nelson; Jane Wilhelm; and Jessica Horsburgh. The club received $20,000 through the Stronger Communities grants towards renovations of the toilets at their clubhouse. I didn't open the toilet facility, but I was pleased to be there. Also there was Rob Liley, the chair of the Toora Bendigo Bank. The bank has been a great supporter of the club. Jill Nicoll, who is on the board of the Toora Bendigo Bank, was there with her son George, who had just been through one of the bronze medallion programs that the club runs. 'What an event that was,' he said. Shire councillors Alyson Skinner and Ray Argento are also great supporters of the club. Waratah Beach Surf Life Saving Club has an incredible history and, with the passion of its members, will have an amazing future. I would like to be part of that through the $20,000 we gave the club to improve their toilets. Drought 58 13:42 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Drought has scourged Australia for the last 250 years that we know of, but, in all probability, it has scourged our country for 40,000 or 50,000 years. The only solution to drought is to grow grass. The only place you can grow grass in Australia where we're not growing grass now is in North Queensland, where, north of the line from Tennant Creek to Mount Isa to Townsville, every creek and river run every year. If they don't have a river, they just have a flood and a series of waterholes. We just need to hold back a little tiny bit of that floodwater. As the great Ernie Bridge from Western Australia said, 'All that we are saying is that the mighty rivers of Australia, on their annual rampage to the sea, pay a small tribute to those people that live along their banks'—a magnificent contribution. To be very technical, Charters Towers and Hughenden are going ahead as a result of Scott Morrison's actions, and we pay the Prime Minister a very great tribute and appreciation for that. Those projects are templates for another 20 projects standing behind them. They can run, when completed, some 1.4 million head of cattle. There are 23 million head of cattle in Australia; we turn off eight million a year. But they can run— (Time expired) Queensland: Mining 58 13:43 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson Central and North Queensland received the fantastic news last week that construction was commencing on the job-creating and economy-boosting Carmichael coal project. Work is starting in the Galilee Basin before Christmas. While the project has already seen hundreds of people employed across Queensland, it will need many more. Because the mine is so remote, communities like Townsville, Mackay and Rockhampton will be a base for workers going to and from that mine. Bowen will get more rail and port jobs and Mackay will also be the service centre hub. What it means for local families is more jobs. There will be thousands of new jobs created by this project, with the construction of the mine and the rail link, the expansion of the port, and the flow-on effects through the economy. The second thing this project will deliver is economic stability and security for Central and North Queensland. While mines have created booms in the past, it is the large number of operating mines, in conjunction with other industries, that maintains a stable economy. But not everyone is rejoicing at the prospect of more local jobs and a better local economy. A very small minority still can't accept their failure to stop this venture and will do anything they can to shut it down. There were six protestors gathered outside my office for another whinge to the TV cameras, because they know I support coal and I support jobs for locals. Unfortunately, they do have some support outside of Central and North Queensland. The usual suspects were joined by Labor's Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Queensland Labor Premier in bagging and down-talking the project. The Labor Party no longer represents miners and mining in North Queensland. It is very sad— (Time expired) Payday Lending 59 13:45 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley This is a government that is missing in action. They are missing in action on energy policy, on equality, on school funding, on hospital funding and on payday lending. In fact, to date it has now been 1,214 days since the government announced a review into payday lending, but has since let the loan sharks roam free to continue ripping off Australians. One member of the government in particular who has been missing on the issue is the member for Forde. Why do I know this? Because last Friday the state member for Macalister, Melissa McMahon, and I, along with dozens of community members, church leaders and frontline organisations came together at the Eagleby Community Hall in the electorate of the member for Forde to voice their concern at how the loan sharks are ripping off locals. The member for Forde is on the record in the parliament as saying: What we know for sure is that fast money, like that offered by payday lenders, is almost guaranteed to lead to a debt cycle. They said they would do something in 2017, and they said they would do something in 2018. Well, there are only days left for this government to be true to its word. They're not focused on the needs of local people and the families that have been crippled by the loan sharks. They're not focused on the day-to-day issues of ordinary Australians. They are focused on each other, on ripping each other apart, worried about their own jobs and not the jobs of Australians. The member for Forde and those opposite need to stop fighting amongst themselves and instead start fighting for those they represent and clamp down on the loan sharks in this country. (Time expired) Modern Slavery Act 2018 59 13:46 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley Over two years ago, as chair of parliament's Foreign Affairs and Aid Sub-Committee, I initiated and led the inquiry into Australia adopting a modern slavery act. I'm proud of the coalition government's willingness not only to enable this inquiry but to then take strong action to introduce what was passed last week as the Modern Slavery Act 2018. I said at the beginning that I didn't want to do an inquiry that just sat on the shelf gathering dust but one that would result in real change and real action. I'm proud of our ability across the chamber to come together in a bipartisan manner to work towards this act and to raise awareness of the crime of modern slavery. Our final report, Hidden in plain sight, recommended the establishment of the Modern Slavery Act and other measures to tackle the crime of modern slavery in Australia, in our region and beyond. The act is world-leading. It not only requires entities above a threshold of $100 million to report on modern slavery in their supply chains but it also includes government in that reporting, a legislated central repository, a legislated opt-in below that threshold, prescribed reporting requirements and compliance through a requirement to list entities who need to report, those who do report and those who don't report. I thank those across the chamber for their willingness to work on this inquiry and for bringing about this enormous act, which will make a difference in the lives of so many people in Australia, across our region and around the world. Cody, Mr Ray 59 13:48 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor Today marks the 174th anniversary of the rebellion led by Peter Lawlor on the goldfields of Ballarat. Twelve thousand miners got together under the Southern Cross flag pledging to work together to protest and fight against their lack of rights as miners. They understood collectivism, and so does a man in my electorate, Ray Cody, who yesterday celebrated his 85th birthday. Ray was born in Ballarat, so I thought it was a good idea to link him today to the anniversary and to Peter Lawlor. Ray has been a staunch member of the Werribee branch of the ALP. He has had a lifetime of working for the Labor Party for collectivism and for Australian democracy. Ray, until recently, could always be found at an election booth or manning pre-poll. In fact, he tells stories of being nine years of age in Ballarat, with his mother being the person responsible for what was then unusual: the recycling of how-to-vote cards, to make sure that everybody who went into the booths in Ballarat had a Labor Party how-to-vote card in their hand. Ray is 85 now and is living in aged care. I hope he had a fabulous day yesterday. I want to celebrate with him that his grandson is running for parliament. Ray goes back 85 years. His grandson, Daniel Parsell, is the Labor candidate for Fisher in the upcoming federal election. Happy birthday, Ray. (Time expired) Leichhardt Electorate: Cairns Shipping Development Project 59 13:49 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rise to speak about a game-changing project in my electorate that was announced last week. The Cairns Shipping Development Project represents a key economic driver not only for Cairns and Far North Queensland but for all of northern Australia. The project will support 195 full-time jobs during construction and create a further 1,535 ongoing support jobs to deal with the increased investment in our region, especially across the tourism sector. The project's EIS will allow for restricted dredging of one million cubic metres. Importantly, however, the comprehensive EIS allows for up to four million cubic metres to be applied for should there be a need in the future for further expansion. The project will see the widening and deepening of the existing outer shipping channel and the inner harbour channel. It will also see the establishment of a new shipping swing basin to enable future expansion of the Navy base HMAS Cairns and see the upgrading of the existing wharfs. This means more larger cruise ships will be able to come to Cairns, along with larger defence and commercial vessels. More importantly, this project will inject about $1 billion into the local economy through increased expenditure. The Cairns shipping development EIS will not allow any future dredging spoil to be dumped in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. The project's EIS has very strict environmental conditions that must be met, and these conditions are not negotiable. This is certainly a game changer for my region, and I look forward to seeing the project get underway in May 2019. (Time expired) Bass Electorate: Water 60 13:51 Mr HART 263070 Bass I'd like to talk about a small town called Pioneer in north-eastern Tasmania. We heard earlier today the presentation of a report dealing with PFAS contamination, which of course affects the right of citizens of Australia to receive clean drinking water. Everybody obviously has a reasonable expectation of clean drinking water. Much work has been done within Tasmania by the organisation TasWater in order to ensure that our remote small communities are receiving clean and safe drinking water. But a study was done in 2012 which indicated that there was lead contamination at Pioneer. A health alert was issued. There was lead in the water source and soil materials. A service replacement program was initiated. Ninety per cent of the town of Pioneer supported this service replacement program. The program was to install tanks and infrastructure to enable the collection of clean, safe rainwater. Existing roofs were to be tested, in particular, for lead contamination, and here's the rub: unfortunately, by whatever means, there's been a breakdown in communication and in the delivery of service to this community. Residents have the concern that their lead-contaminated roofs have not been tested. TasWater needs to come and own up to exactly what is happening with the clean water which is supposed to be delivered to this community. Every community deserves clean water. Brisbane Electorate: Environmental Conservation 60 13:52 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane On the weekend I inspected some very important works being undertaken in Brisbane, specifically in the area of bush care and creek rehabilitation works along Enoggera Creek between Newmarket and Ashgrove. It's important because the Brisbane River and its catchment is the most significant environmental asset for Brisbane and for all of South East Queensland, given that it sustains the health of Moreton Bay. The Davidson Street Creek Restoration project is being managed by Healthy Land and Water, the local NRM, and it's funded by one of the many election commitments that I fought for all around the Brisbane River catchment, because there's significant evidence that river catchments offer the greatest opportunity for us to link different policy objectives around biodiversity, conservation, lifestyle and local economy. The NRMs and their river catchment works, incidentally, are proud environmental legacies of Liberal governments going back decades, so it's important that we recognise and continue this valuable work. I'll continue to fight for local environmental priorities like this throughout the Brisbane River catchment, including those identified in the Resilient Rivers Initiative and through water quality reporting. I want to thank, on the record, all of the locals who are involved in various Enoggera Creek catchment groups and, in particular, all the locals whose feedback and involvement helped to shape this project in particular. We know that fighting for funding for projects like this makes a valuable contribution to our local environment and to our great city in areas where it's needed the most. International Day of Disabled Persons 60 13:54 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Today is the International Day of Disabled Persons, when we celebrate and recognise the achievements, capabilities and contributions of people with a disability. As a society we must keep working towards getting rid of physical and technological barriers so that people with disability can fulfil their true potential as equal members of our community. There are so many fantastic organisations in Darwin and Palmerston, in the electorate that I represent, who provide that support to people with a disability. One of those Top End organisations is Total Recreation. They help people with a disability to participate in programs that really encourage that social inclusion. Keogh and the team do an incredible job. I was lucky enough to join in one of their events recently. It was the Dancing with the Celebrities gala ball. I had the privilege of dancing with Gabby, who has a rare chromosome disorder. She was a wonderfully patient dance partner and, despite assistance from the members for Paterson and Cowper, who were great dance teachers, I fear I let Gabby down. However, we did the foxtrot, the samba and the rumba. It was a fantastic evening, and I want to thank everyone who's working to support people with disabilities, and thank you to those with disabilities for your unique gifts to our country. Trisic, Ms Chloe 61 13:56 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar An outstanding Mackellar constituent is 13-year-old Chloe Trisic. Chloe may be young, but she has never let her age hold her back from achieving her goals. Chloe is an amazing young athlete. She first started gymnastics at the age of four, before starting to compete at the age of just six. Training 26 hours a week at the Manly Warringah Gymnastic Club under head coach and Olympic silver medallist Xiaoqing Li, Chloe is a very determined young woman, it is clear. These long hours and all her hard work have been amply reflected in her achievements. Chloe is the member of Team Future, an international development group, and attends clinics at the Australian Institute of Sport in Canberra. She was New South Wales state champion in 2015, placing first. She placed second in 2017, and second this year also. Chloe competes at a national championship level, placing third on the floor and sixth overall at the Australian Gymnastics Championships 2018 Australian Classic. She has also been named as a team member for the 2018-19 Women's Artistic Gymnastics junior national squad. To quote Chloe, 'My dream and goal has always been to represent Australia internationally as a gymnast, which is what drives and motivates me.' If her outstanding achievements are anything to go by, I think Chloe will be one to watch in the future. Congratulations on all your hard work, Chloe. I look forward to your future achievements. (Time expired) Climate Change 61 13:57 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam It's great to see so many schoolkids up in the gallery today. It reminds us that, in this place, we should be focused on their futures and not our own. It's why I was so pleased on Friday to see thousands of school students around the country give up some of their time to protest against the inaction of this government when it comes to climate change and having a clean energy future. Thousands of them gave up a little bit of their time to ensure that we have better policy for a better future. They received messages of encouragement and support from right around the country. Of course, not everybody was praising their actions. The Prime Minister had the temerity to criticise them and say that they should be at school instead of being out there doing it. This is the bloke who can't fit more than one person on a speaking list for the entire day and has put out a sitting schedule for 11 days next year. And it wasn't just the Prime Minister; the member for Hughes interrupted a very busy schedule at Sky News to give some advice about their dietary habits. After five years of no policy on energy and climate change, the member for Hughes has the solution. 'Eat less ice cream,' he told them. That's going to be the solution to climate change. The kids of Australia don't need a lesson on climate change from the biggest boofhead on that side of the parliament. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Whitlam will withdraw. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B We've got a better future, and it won't be from them. The SPEAKER 00APG The member from Whitlam will withdraw. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B I withdraw. The SPEAKER 00APG I say to the member for Whitlam: he has a habit of doing this; if he continues to do it, he won't be recognised in the 90-second statements. Australian Space Agency 61 13:59 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby This morning I met with the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology to continue my fight to have the national space agency headquartered in my home state of South Australia. I've also personally met with the Premier of South Australia on a number of occasions to discuss the case for space. Adelaide is the home of defence and advanced manufacturing, thanks to our government's recent $35 billion investment and our private-sector defence presence. We are the home of world-class teachers and researchers at Adelaide University, Flinders University and the University of South Australia. World-famous former NASA astronaut Dr Andy Thomas AO and space expert Andrea Boyd both studied at Adelaide University. I was honoured to meet Andrea, who is a mechatronic engineer and the European Space Agency's flight controller for the International Space Agency, through her brother Leighton Boyd, who is the director of my wonderful local community group MarionLIFE. It makes sense to base the Australian Space Agency in Adelaide because we already have the training and manufacturing expertise to launch this capability. I'm fighting for an Adelaide based national space agency for the jobs and the future of young people in my state. One of those young people is Charlie Miller, a year 5 student at Pembroke School, who is here today in the gallery with his family and friends: Jane and Daisy Miller, Amber Sprague, and Scarlett and Georgia Foster. Charlie wants to be an aeronautical engineer, but maybe if we are home to the Space Agency he will consider being an astronautical engineer instead. I will continue to make the case for space. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 62 CONDOLENCES Bush, President George Herbert Walker 62 Reference to Federation Chamber 63 14:12 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That further statements in relation to the death of former President of the United States of America George H W Bush be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 64 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security 64 14:12 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the front page of The Australian newspaper appears to quote from a confidential Australian Federal Police submission to the intelligence committee about the government's encryption bill? Is the Prime Minister aware that leaking a confidential submission to the committee is a criminal offence under national security legislation, punishable with up to two years in prison? Has the Prime Minister asked the AFP to investigate this criminal leak? 14:13 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'm happy to take on notice the matter that the member has raised and raise that in a discussion with the AFP if indeed that is necessary. I would also only note this—that is, encryption is a tool being used by terrorists, organised criminals and paedophile rings, and it is something we must get ahead of by ensuring that the police, our security agencies and all of our agencies that are engaged at state and federal level have the tools they need to make this stop. We are committed to doing that. That is why we have brought this legislation into the parliament. We will continue to engage with the opposition to seek their support for these measures, and I hope that they are able to support us in these efforts. Economy 64 14:14 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the G20 support for an open global trading system and cooperation on security helps to guarantee our future prosperity by building a stronger Australian economy without increasing taxes? 14:14 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Robertson for her question and I commend her on her endorsement as the Liberal candidate and member for the next election. She's doing a great job as the member for Robertson, and she'll continue to do that. Our government has a plan for an even stronger economy, which is ensuring we can deliver the essential services that Australians rely on to protect the services they have and to ensure they can secure the opportunities that they're looking for, for them and their families, into the future. Our plan for a stronger economy is setting up Australians for the next decade as, indeed, we've been able to put the runs on the board in creating a stronger economy to this point. There is a choice at the next election: a stronger economy with lower taxes under the Liberal-National Party or a weaker economy with higher taxes under the Labor Party. It's a very clear contrast. There's a very clear choice. Our plan, which involves a stronger economy, is how you guarantee Medicare, is how you guarantee affordable medicines and is how you guarantee funding for schools and hospitals. Only through a stronger economy can you achieve that. That's why our plan—lowering taxes, backing small business and family businesses, investing in the infrastructure that Australians need to grow their economy, congestion-busting the city and connecting markets together with those who are producing the produce across the country—is also enhanced by our commitment to free and open trade. In this country, one in five jobs are dependent on trade—40 per cent of our economy is dependent on trade—and over the last generation Australian households are $8,500 better off today in real terms because of the advances that we've made in trade. Our government understands that Australia has never got rich selling things to itself. We've understood that Australia has had to have an external outlook and has had to focus on opening up markets. That's why, as a government, we've focused on securing those agreements from the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement—all of these agreements. While we were at the G20, we made extraordinary progress and a political commitment to conclude an EU free trade agreement when we met with the European Commission. We went to the G20 for the simple purpose to promote the cause of free trade and open trade with rule based trade. That was the focus of our efforts. We were pleased to see the meeting between President Jinping and President Trump. We were pleased to see the communique that recommitted to deal with the growing tensions in trade, to ensure that the Australian economy can continue to benefit from free and open trade. It's a key part of our plan that is delivering a stronger economy for Australia. It is disappointing that the Labor Party sought to frustrate us over that plan over the last five years. (Time expired) National Security 64 14:17 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Prime Minister is extensively quoted in a report on the front page of The Australian newspaper, which appears to include a leaked submission to the intelligence committee, and given that the report is based on an exclusive interview conducted with the Prime Minister during his trip to Argentina for the G20, can the Prime Minister guarantee that neither he nor his office played any role in the leaking of a confidential submission, which is a criminal offence under national security laws? Mr Porter interjecting— 14:18 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I will pick up on the comment made by the Attorney-General: 'If only the Labor Party were as interested in ensuring there were mandatory sentences for those who were involved in serious criminal offences in this country.' If the member opposite wants to make these sorts of allegations— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Prime Minister, just pause for a second. If the members for Gorton and others could cease yelling in my ear, I'd be able to listen to what's being said. I think most members—I would have hoped the member for Gorton—would understand I'm trying to listen intently to the questions and answers so that I can do my job. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L If the shadow Attorney-General— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned! Mr MORRISON E3L If the shadow Attorney-General wants to come in here and make grubby smears against me, he's got to come up with more than just reading the newspaper. I find the suggestion offensive and reject it. Queensland: Bushfires 65 14:19 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House about the bushfires in Queensland, following his visits to affected areas with the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, the member for Flynn, the member for Capricornia and myself over the past few days? 14:19 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Dawson for his question. In the worst of times, you see the best of Australians, the best of Queenslanders. Our thoughts are with the families, the farmers and the communities across Queensland as the bushfires continue to burn. As at the latest report, eight houses have been destroyed and numerous other structures, vehicles and farm machinery have been lost. At the weekend more than 100 fires across the state were burning. At the moment there are still many that may be contained but are still very worrying to the communities that they are besetting. More than half a million hectares have been destroyed across Queensland. The members for Dawson, Capricornia and Flynn; Senator Canavan; the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Reynolds; and I visited affected communities at the weekend. We visited communities in Central and North Queensland that were hard-hit by these devastating bushfires, from Mount Larcom to Miriam Vale, across to Agnes Water, up to Mackay, to Finch Hatton and up the range to Eungella. At the evacuation centre in Miriam Vale the member for Flynn and I met people who've lost their houses; they've lost everything. Despite that, they are in good spirits. They're asking other people how they are. They're asking other people, 'Are you okay?' There are so many stories of people who've left their own homes to help put out fires on other people's properties. That's the spirit—not just the Queensland spirit but the spirit of good Australians, true Australians—that we're seeing right across these fire-affected regions. They are people such as Joan Lennox and Maz Wright from Eungella, west of Mackay. We could call them angels of mercy, because they are—ordinary, everyday people doing extraordinary deeds: helping to cook for the firefighters, going beyond exhaustion to continue to help out with SES and with other volunteers to make sure that people who have no home to go to have something to eat and something to wear, and being there for a chat when they need it. Sometimes it's these small gestures that can make the difference. Joan and Maz are inspiring, and there are so many efforts just like that. During an aerial inspection of the damage, I could see what a tremendous job the firefighters have done to save homes and property. Firefighters from Agnes Water showed me a home that was surrounded by smoke and charred trees, and somehow those heroes on the front line managed to save it from the flames. It was quite unbelievable. And I visited Mount Larcom State School, with the member for Flynn, which also narrowly escaped being razed, thanks to the magnificent efforts of our firefighters. School's in today—saved by a whisker. Those in our emergency services have put their lives at risk, as they always do, and worked tirelessly to save entire communities. I know that the people who live in those areas are just so appreciative and so grateful. Tragically, one young man, George Bird—just 21, with his whole life ahead of him—lost his life while clearing a firebreak on his family's property at Rolleston. We mourn his loss. We grieve with his community. Whilst the fires still rage, and all through the summer, we need people to stay calm, to be measured, to heed the advice of local authorities. It's also very, very important to have a fire plan. It's so important. We pay tribute to the firefighters, paid and unpaid. They are inspiring people; they are great Australians. I urge Australians to keep these communities, these people and these volunteers in mind. To those affected: please be patient, stay calm, stay safe. Australians, we have your back. 14:23 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong On indulgence: the opposition wishes to associate itself with the remarks of the government. There are 109 fires still burning, from Bundaberg to Gladstone, Mackay, Rockhampton and along Stradbroke Island and in many smaller locations. The loss of life is devastating. We, too, send our condolences to the family. And to the professionals and the volunteers: thank you, thank you, thank you. National Security 66 14:23 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that no minister, government member or their office played any role in the leaking of what appears to be a confidential submission to the intelligence committee, which is a criminal offence under national security laws? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, I understand the seriousness of the question and where the shadow Attorney-General is trying to go, but I'm not sure that the actions of everyone in the government ministerial wing are within the knowledge of the Prime Minister, so I don't know how he can answer that question. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left. Ms Burney interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Barton is not assisting. The Manager of Opposition Business to the point of order. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order: as the Leader of the House has effectively made clear, there's no objection within the standing orders to what's being asked here. If the Prime Minister believes he can't provide that level of detail, he can say that in his answer. The SPEAKER 00APG I have listened to the Leader of the House. I understand the point he's seeking to make, but the Prime Minister can speak on behalf of the government, not on behalf of backbenchers or non-ministers. 14:25 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'm not advised or aware of any information that would give rise to the sorts of concerns that the shadow Attorney-General has raised. Again, if the shadow Attorney-General wants to come in here and make these sorts of grubby smears, which is his habit in this place, he is well acquainted with the bottom of the chum bucket. The shadow Attorney-General does this on a regular occasion. He comes in here and makes the most outrageous and offensive smears, without any evidence whatsoever. What I do know is this: I know that, as a member of the Labor Party, the shadow Attorney-General voted against tougher penalties for paedophiles and gun runners—I know that for a fact—and so did the member for Watson. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW On direct relevance: this question— Mr Frydenberg interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer can cease interjecting. Would the Manager of Opposition Business start again. Mr Burke DYW The previous two questions did involve a level of preamble; this question involves none at all. It goes directly to the Prime Minister's knowledge of the leak and the potential criminal offence there. So, therefore, in the normal way, the relevance rule should have constraints that rule this sort of attack out. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business makes a reasonable point of order. It didn't have a preamble and it was quite specific. The point where I have allowed some lenience, though, which I think I have allowed at moments past, is that, if any member is under a degree of personal attack, I do allow a level of response. I think that has occurred. Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? The Prime Minister has concluded his answer. Child Care 66 14:27 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi My question is to the Minister for Education. Five mobile childcare services in my electorate at Mitta, Walwa, Kergunyah, Baranduda and Bellbridge and two in Farrer will close before Christmas. The closures will impact on at least 60 children and put 20 staff out of work. It's particularly sad because mobile child care has been operated for more than 30 years across north-east Victoria and southern New South Wales. Minister, will you convene an urgent round table in Albury-Wodonga, bringing together parents, providers, staff and local government to outline options to maintain these much-needed services in our rural communities? 14:28 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank the member for Indi for her question and also acknowledge the way that her office and the office of the member for Farrer have worked with my office on this issue and also for the cooperative way that both members have worked with me. I spoke with Rod Wangman, the CEO of Albury Wodonga Community College, this morning, and Rod is very keen, as I know both members are, to make sure that we can get some interim arrangements in place and make sure that we can, especially for those families, get services provided next year. I think the suggestion of making sure that we have a round table is a very good one. As a matter of fact, it might be worth us doing one in Victoria on the Victorian side and then one on the New South Wales side so that we can get all the relevant groups together and make sure that we can provide services going forward. As the member knows, the government is putting record investment into child care—$8.3 billion. What we've got to make sure of is that that record investment of $8.3 billion enables us to provide the services that are required not only in urban settings but also in smaller rural communities. As a member of parliament who represents a rural community, as the member for Farrer and the member for Indi do, I want to make sure that that record investment works right across this country. I look forward to convening those round tables and working with both members to make sure that we get the outcomes we need. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 67 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:29 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House that we have joining us in the southern gallery this afternoon traditional owners, rangers and Indigenous Protected Area groups from around the country, celebrating 20 years of Indigenous Protected Areas. On behalf of all members I extend a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 67 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE National Security 67 14:30 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General update the House on the steps the government is taking to strengthen national security and protect Australian families? Is the Attorney aware of any alternative proposals? 14:30 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for his question. In July 2017 a terrorist plot to blow out of the sky an Etihad airliner whilst en route from Sydney to Abu Dhabi went undetected for four months because of the use of encrypted applications. In fact, in this case it was the encrypted messaging app Telegram. Australia's outstanding intelligence and police agencies are simply fighting a numbers game—and we can't be any more honest with the Australian people than to say that it is a numbers game—in their efforts to keep Australians safe. Those numbers are sobering and they speak for themselves: 15 terror plots have now been prevented; seven terror attacks have, sadly, been completed and, tragically, have seen the loss of multiple Australian lives. Our government has legislated 12 tranches of very significant changes to our national security legislation, and the parliament will be tasked this week with perhaps the most critical of all those changes in recent years—that is, the assistance and access bill. That is the only way that we can help our security agencies and police prevent terrorist attacks like the one that, tragically, we saw occur in Bourke Street in Victoria. The No. 1 priority of this government is keeping Australians safe, and dealing with the criminal use of encryption is the most urgent and important change that is required to keep Australians safe. Mr Watts 193430 You did nothing for 18 months. Mr PORTER 208884 As members opposite interject, we on this side of the House, like all members of the Australian public, listen to ASIO when they tell us that 95 per cent of the current targets that they are scoping for terrorism use encrypted applications. The commissioner of the AFP has said that we need these laws—in his words—to: … give police a fighting chance … in an era when the information that we gather is encrypted by default. We on this side of the House note that he doesn't say an advantage; he says 'a fighting chance'. When he uses the word 'police' he doesn't mean just federal police; he means state and federal police. We have now reached a sticking point with this critical legislation where members opposite want to deny this type of benefit to state police. We will talk about this overnight, but this side of the House will not deny these powers to state police and give them only to federal police. Our view is that the lives saved by state police are the same as the lives saved by federal police—that is, they are Australian lives. The Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police has said very clearly: We have been using the term going dark for a while. I think the reality is they have now gone dark. This legislation is urgent. (Time expired) Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 Stop playing politics with it. Ms Henderson interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lyons and the member for Corangamite will cease interjecting. National Security 68 14:33 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Attorney-General. I refer to his previous answer and to the front page of The Australian newspaper, which appears to quote directly from a confidential submission to the intelligence committee about the government's encryption bill—which is a criminal offence under national security legislation, punishable with up to two years in prison. Under national security legislation, a prosecution for this offence can be instituted only by the Attorney-General or with his consent. Can the Attorney-General guarantee to this House that he will not stand in the way of any prosecution for this criminal leak? 14:34 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the shadow Attorney-General for his question. It is the case that an article in The Australian today reads: Australian Federal Police Commissioner Andrew Colvin wrote to the joint committee on intelligence and security to express concern about Labor's proposal to split the encryption bill. "The AFP is very concerned such a purpose-based approach would pose a variety of significant issues that would challenge the effectiveness of the regime and undermine the policy intent of the measures" … Whether that was a confidential communication or not, I simply cannot answer. The shadow Attorney-General's question said that it 'appears to be'. Forgive me if I will reserve my view as to whether or not it appears or doesn't appear to be until I've had the chance the speak with permission— Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lyons can leave under 94(a). The member for Lyons then left the chamber. Mr PORTER 208884 The shadow Attorney-General says that appears to be some form of confidential communication. As I have noted, forgive me for wanting to speak with the commissioner first to the determine whether that was or was not some form of confidential communication and to discuss that matter with him. If he takes the view that some action should be taken I will listen to that view. But if only it were the case that the shadow Attorney-General was as concerned about the national security of Australians who face terrorist attacks as he is about smearing the Prime Minister or any member of this side of the House. This is the classic modus operandi of this member opposite. Whenever he runs into problems, because of his own failure to act in a reasonable way, he runs a smokescreen and runs a smear campaign. The difficulty that the shadow Attorney-General has is that no Australian could physically be as smart as he thinks he is. Taxation 68 14:36 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government is funding essential services and supporting Australians without increasing taxes? How would a higher taxing approach hurt the prosperity of everyday Australians and the economy? 14:36 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for North Sydney for his question. He is very proud of the government's record in providing tax relief, which is encouraging and rewarding Australians. Our legislated income tax relief will enable a forklift driver to be $4,500 better off than they would be under Labor. Our legislated business tax cuts, which will help more than 30,000 small businesses in the electorate of North Sydney, will see an independent supermarket $12,500 a year better off. I was recently in the electorate of Brisbane, at Clayfield's seafood markets, and our $20,000 instant asset write-off enabled the local owner of that business to be able to buy some new grills and upgrade his kitchen. This is in stark contrast to the Labor Party, who have $200 billion—because they believe you should be taxed from the cradle to the grave—in higher taxes on your income, higher taxes on your business, higher taxes on your electricity, with a new carbon tax, higher taxes on your property and higher taxes on your savings. Let me tell the House who is going to be affected by Labor's desperate tax grab, their new retirees tax. Paul and Julianne from Lane Cove. Paul serves in three volunteer roles, including as a counsellor for people with severe illness. He saved his whole life for retirement, and this move by the Labor Party will cost him tens of thousands of dollars a year. He'll have to find part-time work. He said he'll have to cut down on his volunteerism. Let me tell you about David from Brisbane. He's not on the pension. He's invested in Australian stocks. He will lose $10,000 a year, leaving him concerned about his ability to pay his wife's medical bills. The view of Labor's new tax grab, their retirees' tax, is best summed up by 72-year-old Bob, a former tradie, who, with his wife, stands to lose tens of thousands of dollars a year. He said of Labor's policy: 'As far as I'm concerned they are stealing. They are taking my money.' This is the modern Labor Party. You save for your own retirement and, because they can't manage money, they come after yours—900,000 individuals, including hundreds of thousands in Labor electorates, 200,000 self-managed super funds will be worse off as a result of Labor's retiree tax— Dr Freelander 265979 The vast majority of the benefit goes to very wealthy people. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Macarthur will cease interjecting. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL If you vote for Labor, your taxes will be higher, there will be fewer jobs and the economy will be worse off. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 69 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:39 The SPEAKER 00APG I would like to inform the House that we have joining us on the floor this afternoon the Rt Hon. Enele Sopoaga, the Prime Minister of Tuvalu. On behalf of the House, I wish you a very warm welcome here today. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 69 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Federal Election 69 14:40 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. On ABC Radio this morning, Malcolm Turnbull confirmed that it was government policy, supported by the now Prime Minister, to hold a federal election on 2 March next year. Mr Turnbull also warned that the performance of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government could damage the New South Wales government's chances of re-election. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with the New South Wales Liberal Premier about the timing of the federal election? The SPEAKER 00APG I can't find any part of that question in order. We'll go to the member for La Trobe. Economy 69 14:40 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations. Will the minister update the House on how the government's strong economic plan is helping small business thrive? Is the minister aware of any risks posed by higher taxing alternatives? 14:41 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. As the member knows, a strong economy is absolutely fundamental, not only in delivering the essential services that Australians rely on but also in ensuring that our small and family businesses have the right environment in which to thrive. Under the coalition's stewardship of the economy, our economy is going from strength to strength. We have seen around 1.2 million jobs created since coming into government. There are now more Australians in work than ever before. I know that the member for Sydney always finds this a very inconvenient point, but there are more Australian women in work than ever before. There are more Australian women in full-time work than ever before. In fact, we have the highest participation rate on record. In fact, we have seen the gender pay gap come down under our government to 14.5 per cent. Under the Labor government, it went up to more than 17 per cent. Just last week, the Australian Bureau of Statistics confirmed that, over the past year, we have seen the strongest growth in median wages in around 13 years. It is the coalition government, under Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, that will see the delivery of a surplus—something that those opposite do not have the skill to do. In fact, they last delivered a surplus when the Berlin Wall was standing. Under our government, we have cut taxes. We've cut them for small and family-sized businesses: the more than three million small and family-sized businesses that are employing so many millions of Australians. We have cut red tape for those businesses. We've simplified the business activity statement to help with their compliance costs. We have established the Australian Financial Complaints Authority to ensure that small businesses have access to fast, free and binding dispute resolution when they have a complaint with a financial institution. We will continue to do all that we can to support small business, and we do so proudly. But those opposite will only do one thing if they are entrusted with government: they will take more money from small businesses and more money from the people who work for them. They will slug them with higher business taxes. They will slug them with higher taxes on their investments. They will make it harder for small and family businesses to employ people. They will make it harder for young people to be able to get a job and build for their future. They will make it harder for people to be able to save for their retirement, with their mega retiree tax. We will back small business; they will attack them. (Time expired) Liberal Party Leadership 70 14:44 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the Prime Minister had to explain to US President Donald Trump why Malcolm Turnbull is no longer Prime Minister and that German Chancellor Angela Merkel wasn't even sure who he was, will he now explain to the Australian people and the wider world why Malcolm Turnbull is no longer Prime Minister of Australia? 14:44 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I can assure the Leader of the Labor Party that everybody on this side of the House is going to work incredibly hard from this day to the next election to ensure the rest of the world never knows who the Leader of the Labor Party is. If they were to find out who the Leader of the Labor Party is if he were to become Prime Minister, I know this would happen: the Australian economy would be weaker, there'd be fewer jobs and there'd be higher taxes. One of those higher taxes would be the higher tax on Australians investing in their own homes, investing in housing for their own future: police officers, nurses, teachers and others who go about the process, small-business owners putting their money aside, investing in investment property to provide for their future. The greatest threat to Australians who work hard and who save is the Leader of the Labor Party, the shadow Treasurer and Labor's plan for higher taxes. I notice today in the CoreLogic report that they have observed that a negative gearing rollback looking to exclude established dwellings could diminish demand across the resale market, with less investment demand for properties with lower rental yields; and the halving of capital gains tax concessions would likely provide further disincentive to investment. Do you know what that means? The value of people's homes would go down and their rents would go up. That is the policy of the Labor Party. If the rest of the world got to know who the Leader of the Labor Party is, he wouldn't be able to go to the G20, as I just did, and talk about the strong-performing Australian economy, as I particularly did in relation to the strong performance of the Australian economy supporting Australian women. At the G20 we could talk about how we have the highest record of female workforce participation in Australia's history, at over 60 per cent, with the gender pay gap falling to 14½ per cent, which is one of the lowest levels that we've ever seen in this country, and four percentage points lower than the average around the rest of the world. So I could talk to the G20 about how Australia's economy was the envy of the world, growing strongly, with unemployment coming down, investment driving the country forward, and a government committed to freeing up trade and engaging with the rest of the world. I was particularly pleased to be able to say, when I met with President Trump, that Australia would be meeting our commitment to two per cent of GDP on defence spending. Not only is that meeting our commitments and keeping Australians safe; that is providing thousands upon thousands of jobs for Australians all around the rest of the country. Under this government, we've got a great story to tell about the economy. Under a Labor government, the story goes very pear shaped. Energy 70 14:47 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie My question is to the Minister for Energy. Will the minister please update the House on how the government will help bring down electricity prices, and how would a different approach to economic management drive up power prices, including in my electorate of Petrie? 14:48 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for Petrie for his question. He knows that this government has a balanced and sensible approach to providing affordable, reliable electricity to all Australian small businesses and families, including in his electorate of Petrie. Several weeks ago, I visited the member's home state of Queensland, where I met Curtis and Chelsea, who own a fitness business, Flex Fitness, that uses a lot of electricity to keep their clients cool. Recently in Queensland, they saw their electricity bill go from $500 to $2,000 a quarter—times four. Curtis and Chelsea are paying for Queensland Labor's $2 billion electricity tax that is slugging Queenslanders to fix their budget blowout, because Labor governments prefer higher electricity prices, whereas we on this side of the parliament prefer lower ones. The big energy companies have been forced to provide a better deal on energy prices, thanks to pressure from this government. Our actions have ensured that half a million Australian families will be getting a better deal from 1 January. AGL, EnergyAustralia, Origin, Alinta Energy and Lumo Energy, along with others, have heard the government's calls and have cut prices to customers on standing offers by up to 15 per cent, or up to $560 per annum for a typical residential customer. Meanwhile, those opposite have announced that they will oppose our big-stick legislation, before they've even seen it—legislation that will hold the big energy companies to account, because the 'big three' energy companies have been taking record profits in recent years. In the last four financial years their profits grew by $1.15 billion per annum. I will remind those opposite that these companies are providing essential services to all Australians and their profits are partly coming through sneaky late payments, price gouging and loyalty taxes. Worse than that, those opposite want to impose their reckless 45 per cent emissions reduction target on the entire economy and they haven't yet explained what that means for farmers and for truckies and tradies, who are going to be facing new, draconian vehicle-emissions standards, or what it means for manufacturers, who have been doing it tough. We stand for lower electricity prices, while we keep the lights on. Energy 71 14:51 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The government's proposed divestment legislation was rejected by the ACCC and has been slammed by energy experts, legal experts, business experts and economists as putting upward pressure on prices, as being bad ideologically and as being unconstitutional. Why won't the Prime Minister abandon this discredited legislation and instead work with Labor to deliver the National Energy Guarantee, which the Prime Minister has previously said would deliver lower power prices? 14:51 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Once again, the leader of the Labor Party is seeking to mislead the Australian people. Labor's plan, which we will not support under any circumstances, is to have a 45 per cent emissions reduction target. They can dress it up in whatever language they like, they can call it a NEG or whatever they like, but Labor's policy is to have a 45 per cent, job-destroying, economy-crushing emissions reduction target that will rob from the Australian economy. The leader of the Labor Party needs to come clean. He needs to tell those industries around Australia which will be the first to close. Will it be—as the member for Flynn knows—the aluminium smelter at Boyne Island? Will it be that? Will it be farmers? Will it be the Portland aluminium smelter, down in the member for Wannon's electorate? The leader of the Labor Party is pulling a big con on the Australian people. Their five-point plan is tax, tax, tax, tax and tax. That is what the Labor Party stands for, and one of the biggest taxes they are proposing is an electricity tax, with their 45 per cent emissions reduction target. It's a reckless figure. It will cost Australians jobs and the leader of the Labor Party will have to be accountable for it when he goes to the next election. We on this side of the House will not support an emissions reduction target as reckless as that. It is a carbon tax on steroids. I'll ask the Treasurer to add to the answer. 14:53 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong On that side of the House, Labor is on the side of energy companies. On this side of the House, we're on the side of consumers. Let's face it: the energy market has not been serving consumers well. This is what the ACCC has said about the energy companies—that retailers have: … played a major role in poor outcomes for consumers. That is what the ACCC said. In the wholesale market, the ACCC has found a lack of competition has resulted in higher prices. When it comes to the retail market, they say that the energy companies have been using deliberately confusing discounting strategies, using excessively high benchmarks and complex offer structures. The Liberal and National government is addressing these problems with our plans for a new default market offer, with our plans to underwrite new generation investment capacity, with our plans for a reliability guarantee, and with our plans for new powers to respond to misconduct in the energy sector. We are on the side of Australian families and businesses. Defence Industry 71 14:54 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on how the government has created jobs and opportunity through the capability-building projects that Australian service men and women rely on? How might alternative approaches undermine these projects and threaten jobs, including in my electorate of Boothby? 14:55 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the very hardworking member for Boothby, who is delivering for the residents of her electorate and will continue to do so years into the future, for her question. Because we have delivered a surplus budget for next year, because of good economic management and because of a growing economy, driven by good economic management from this side of the House, we can afford to have the biggest build-up of our military capability in our peacetime history, because we can afford to pay for it. We can afford to pay for it, because we are running balanced budgets and helping to grow the economy, because we're taking the burden off small and medium enterprises and because we are making multinationals pay their taxation. We are running the revenues that allow us to invest in our military capability. Just last week we saw the impact of this in an Oxford Economics report about the Hunter-class anti-submarine warfare frigates program. That economics report found that the frigates program will put $17 billion into the national economy. It'll create 6,300 jobs at its peak—even more than we had anticipated. Five-hundred Australian companies are already prequalified to work on the Hunter class frigates project, and it's using 48,000 tonnes of Australian steel, which, of course, wouldn't be available if the Labor Party were in office, under their energy policies, because the steel industry would be put out of business. The 48,000 tonnes of steel will be coming from Australia. This is in very stark contrast to what we saw under the Labor Party. Because of their budget management, because the economy was not growing in the way that it is now and because they weren't running balanced budgets, they had to cut defence spending, and they did. They cut defence spending. In 2010-11 they cut defence spending by 6.4 per cent in real terms. In 2011-12 they cut it by 2.3 per cent in real terms. In 2012-13 they cut defence spending by a whopping 9.2 per cent in real terms. In total they reduced defence spending in those three budgets by 17.9 per cent—by almost a fifth. That's why they couldn't make the decisions about projects like the anti-submarine warfare frigate program. They couldn't commission any vessels in six years, because they were cutting defence spending. Instead, we've commissioned 55 vessels. The most recent is the HADR vessel for the south-west Pacific. We have completely transformed the naval shipbuilding program, unlike Labor. Energy 72 14:58 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to statements made today by industry groups that the government's proposed divestiture powers represent deep and genuine sovereign risk or discourage badly needed investment in the energy sector and will lead only to increased investment uncertainty and prices. Isn't the government's big stick really just a big mistake that will lead to sovereign risk and higher power prices? Why has this Liberal government abandoned its policy commitment to free enterprise? 14:59 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The member for McMahon has a short memory, because the last time the Labor Party was in government, at a federal level, power prices doubled. They went up by over 100 per cent. They ignored the warnings on gas. As the member for Hume knows, they left us with potential shortfalls in the domestic gas market. Now they are coming up with the pink batteries to solve the energy issues. What about a replication nationally of what we saw in South Australia—the big experiment in South Australia? Some 458,000 Australian families and 39,000 small businesses are today getting a better deal on their energy prices thanks to the work of the Morrison government because we're putting energy users, consumers, businesses and families first, whereas the Labor Party is siding with the energy companies. The fact is that there is market misconduct, and we have to take the necessary action. There are a range of remedies available. They range from a warning notice to enforceable undertakings, to financial penalties and fines and, finally, as a last resort, to divestment. These are the steps that need to be taken to ensure that energy consumers get the lowest possible prices. If I were the member for McMahon, rather than being out there throwing a big stick at big business with IR and tax policies, I'd be worrying about the 3,000 retirees who are going to be worse off and the 7,000 families who negative gear in the member for McMahon's electorate who will all be worse off as a result of Labor's policy. Superannuation 72 15:01 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane My question is to the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care. Will the minister update the House on how our government is supporting senior Australians and providing the essential services on which they rely without increasing taxes? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that would harm the livelihood of senior Australians, including retirees, who have worked hard their whole lives to save for their retirement? 15:01 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. It is an important question. We're protecting self-funded retirees and senior Australians. We're providing opportunities for them to have 45-year-old and 65-year-old checks to plan better for their economic retirement, for their financial future, for their health and for those necessities in life. This cohort in Australia worked extremely hard in the forties, fifties, sixties and seventies. They've planned for their retirement. They've planned for the years in which they wish to enjoy life with their family. I was at a seniors forum held by the member for Corangamite. With the local member I listened to senior Australians, who expressed a range of views. One gentleman in the audience just said: 'Keep your hands off our pensions. Keep your hands off our retirement planning. Under a Labor government we will lose money.' Another couple said that they had worked for 20 years and saved. They have driven the same car and have never taken a holiday. They are planning for their years of retirement. They made the comment that they are now terrified of a Labor government taking their hard-earned funds. What they want is certainty. They know the challenge of planning for their future. It is being eroded. They asked me to ask the Leader of the Opposition to reconsider the franking dividend tax, because they want to have better opportunities in life. Some 900,000 Australians will be affected by your decision and your actions. We do not support Labor's policy to deny refundability of franking credits. Their policy will take thousands of dollars out of the pockets of retired senior Australians who have saved for their retirement. Under Labor's retiree tax, 84 per cent of individuals on taxable incomes of less than $37,000 will be affected and 40 per cent are 65 years or older. Senior Australians are concerned and are raising their voices. Shadow Treasurer, they want you to pull back on that. They want you to give them the opportunity to enjoy their retirement years. Don't put your hand in their pocket and take their funding. They want to have a quality life. The member for Bowen— Mr Bowen DZS Member for Bowen? Mr WYATT M3A The member for McMahon, I'm sorry. I'm was mistaken as to the name. They don't want you to put your hand in their pockets. (Time expired) Energy 73 15:04 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the member for Hughes under standing order 99. I refer to the member's motion on the Notice Paper which relates to the National Energy Guarantee and says that it provides certainty for investors and reduces price volatility. Under standing orders, this motion will be removed from the Notice Paper if it's not selected for debate again. When will the motion be debated again, and has the member sought any intervention to have it debated? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Albanese R36 Thinking time won't help him! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Grayndler! I warn you on irony first. Mr Pyne 9V5 The member for Hughes does not have responsibility for what the Selection Committee decides, and therefore he's not capable of answering that question. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, to the point of order: I refer to your previous ruling on exactly this matter. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. That previous ruling said that certainly the member who has a motion on the Notice Paper can be asked a question. It's well written up in Practice. But the only part that is in order is the matters that go to procedure and timing. I think almost word for word I could say, just as I said last time, that the member doesn't control the Selection Committee. It doesn't prevent him being asked the question. 15:06 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes You are correct: it is up to the Selection Committee. But there is a big difference between the previous National Energy Guarantee and one that has a 45 per cent target. The 45 per cent target that you lot over there have is a replica of what we've seen in South Australia. It delivered the highest electricity prices in the entire world, and that is the policy that the Labor Party wants to inflict upon every single Australian. I'd ask you to think about the old age pensioners sitting at home that are unable to heat their homes in winter. You lot don't care one bit about them. Think about the pensioners this summertime that won't be able to cool their houses when it's 40 degrees in Western Sydney. You don't care. If you really cared, you would scrap your 45 per cent target and get on board with the coalition's policy. 15:08 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Under standing order 1, I move: That the member's time be extended. The SPEAKER 00APG No, I dealt with this previously. By logic, an extension of time can only— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, it's very clearly written up in Practice. Can I explain this very simple concept: an extension of time can only be moved when someone has run out of time. That's when they need more time. Drought 74 15:08 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister update the House on how the government is providing vital support for drought affected regions throughout Australia in the industries that we rely on, and would another approach to the economy place farming communities at risk? 15:08 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the honourable member for his question and his interest in this drought, a drought that is spreading like a cancer right across our country and now even into his own electorate in South Australia. That's why it's important that we as a federal government give a helping hand to one of the big economic lifters of our nation's economy. The agriculture sector contributes over $60 billion a year to our nation's economy, and that's why this government to date has committed up to $7 billion worth of support programs not only to the here and now but also into the future. We've done that not by having to increase taxes but actually at a time when we've reduced taxes. We've reduced taxes for small businesses, and those farmers themselves are small businesses who will take advantage of those tax cuts so that, when it does rain, they'll recover even more quickly and they'll be able to invest back in their properties and employ more people back on their farms, keeping those local communities going. It has also allowed us, for the first time in this nation's history, to have a nationally coordinated drought approach, with a $5 billion centrepiece that will allow us to reinvest the dividends of that, every year after 2020 into research and development, into infrastructure. That's our job as a federal government—to put the environment and infrastructure around our people and let them grow, let them do the lifting. That's why we've already complemented the research and development with $300 million a year to allow our farmers to have the cutting-edge science and technology that makes them more productive and allows them to produce the best food and fibre in the world. Then we put the infrastructure around them, complemented with over a billion dollars on the table for water infrastructure, to drought-proof our nation, to build that productivity and profitability, coupled with $2 billion worth of Regional Investment Corporation loans to kickstart that drought-proofing across the nation. Then we've gone deeper, to the farm gate. We're tackling pests and weeds, which cost the agricultural sector $5 billion a year. We are looking at things like exclusion fences to try and remove wild dogs. For the first time in decades, sheep are being brought back to these small regional communities. That brings shearers back, and invariably the shearer leaves some of their money at the pubs and servos and cafes in these regional communities. We're also seeing environmental benefits. We're seeing for the first time in decades a return of koalas, brolgas and small marsupials. We're also making sure we're working with the best science with the Bureau of Meteorology, getting localised climate guides to give our farmers the tools, the equipment, to be able to make real-time decisions about their stocking density, about their cropping rotations, and making sure they've got the cutting-edge technology to ensure that their decisions make them the best money they possibly can, which flows back through their community. This is not only an investment in agriculture but also an investment in our nation. Morrison Government 74 15:11 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide My question is to the Prime Minister. On ABC radio this morning Malcolm Turnbull warned that giving in to the threats of the member for Hughes to go to the crossbench would be the worst and weakest option, saying: Giving in to threats of this kind is really, I mean it is the antithesis of good government, giving into threats of that kind. Why does this Prime Minister always choose the worst and the weakest option, including on government policy? 15:11 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The premise of the question is false. No such threats were ever made. But, when it comes to the weakest option, he's sitting right there—that's who it is. When it comes to our economy, the weakest option is the Labor Party, because only the Labor Party wants to put $200 billion worth of higher taxes on the Australian economy. Only the Labor Party thinks it's a great idea that, when the housing market has softened, you go and hit it with a great big tax when it comes to abolishing negative gearing as we know it and increasing capital gains tax by 50 per cent. Only the geniuses that thought it was a great idea to impose the mining tax at its peak level of vulnerability think it's a great idea to pose a housing tax when the housing market is at its peak level of vulnerability. When it comes to weakness, when it comes to vulnerability, its name is Labor when it comes to the economy. Schools 74 15:13 Dr PHELPS 008Z0 Wentworth My question is to the Prime Minister. During the recent Wentworth by-election campaign you committed to urgently eliminating discrimination against students on the basis of their sexuality. I draw your attention to recent reports of the brave statement by Finn Stannard, a year 12 student at St Ignatius College, Riverview, coming out as gay to his school community and saying that he hopes to start a teaching degree next year. Does the Prime Minister believe that any Australian school should have the right to expel students like Finn or to reject or sack him as a teacher when he graduates? 15:13 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce Of course the government doesn't support a young brave student like that being expelled. Of course we do not. But let me explain to the House what the issue is that is now before the Senate and that I have discussed with the shadow Attorney-General. Since 1995 in workplaces and other places there have been rules of general application and they have stipulated commonsense things that needed to be taken into account when determining the reasonableness of the rules. The Human Rights Commission is tasked with the job of determining whether or not a workplace rule that might have an indirect effect on one group of people based on their gender or sexual identity is a reasonable rule. We have committed to the complete removal of section 38(3), which is the section that would allow for the expulsion of any student based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. What we have asked is that, at the same time that that section is removed, a very modest addition be made to the provisions of the act at 7B, which tell the decision-maker—at first instance, the Human Rights Commissioner—the types of things they should have regard to in determining the reasonableness of the rule. The reason we have done that is we think an equally important balancing issue here is not merely people's right to be free from discrimination, which is critically important, but also the right of the one million people in Australia who choose religious schools to see those schools conducted in a way that is reasonably consistent with their faith. The example I've used at several points is the notion that a religious school might have a rule of general application that applies to all students, irrespective of their gender identity or sexuality, that says: 'At our school you have to go to chapel once a week.' We think that is a fair rule. We're not at all convinced that the terms of 7B provide adequate protection. What we want to put into that section is simply a provision that would draw the decision-maker's attention to two things: if a school has a rule like that, have they taken into account the best interests of the child, and is it a rule that is reasonably necessary to protect the religious sensibilities of that school? That is all we have asked for. We could deal with this thing today if we could agree around something as reasonable as that. But what members opposite have insisted on is a bare removal of section 38(3), and we simply do not believe that achieves the right balance between these two very important and competing rights: the right of people of religion to see their schools associate and organise themselves in a way that's consistent with their faith; and the right to be free from discrimination. We would like to see this passed now, but it has to be a balanced passage. Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 75 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Queensland: Bushfires 75 15:16 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer. The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister may proceed. Mr McCORMACK 219646 To clarify: the name of the deceased killed while clearing a firebreak is George Bird, aged 21. May he rest in peace. I may have said something else. I apologise. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for adding to the answer as soon as he could. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 75 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Dress Code 75 15:17 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Mr Speaker, I have a question for you which I flagged with you during question time. There are reports that during question time the journalist Patricia Karvelas was asked to leave the gallery section of the chamber on the basis of dress standard rules that I think none of us has ever heard of before and that certainly are quite different from what is acceptable on the floor of the chamber. Given that you've been busy chairing question time, I won't pretend for a minute that you've had a chance to look into it. Following question time could I simply ask that you investigate it and, subsequent to that, if the rules need to be fixed can we please fix them? 15:18 The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for the courtesy of flagging that with me during question time. He self-evidently points out that, while question time is on, I'm not aware of all of those issues; but I will certainly be making some inquiries and I'll report back as soon as I can. I thank him for flagging that with me and I'll make some inquiries. The Leader of the House. 15:18 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Mr Speaker, there are rules about dress standards in the chamber, as there are also in the galleries. I'm sure you'll investigate thoroughly and make sure that those rules are being complied with. DOCUMENTS 76 DOCUMENTS Presentation 76 15:18 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. COMMITTEES 76 COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources 76 Report 76 15:19 Mr JOYCE E5D New England On behalf of the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, I present the committee's report entitled Keeping it in the regions: mining and resources industry support for businesses in regional economies together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr JOYCE E5D by leave—I think this report has been instrumental, already, in its outcomes. Already we've had Peabody and BHP come back to us saying that they will change their terms of payment to be more immediate with the services provided, in fact within 30 days. This committee managed to cover the length and breadth of our nation from the north-west in the Kimberley and Port Hedland, right down to Singleton and across to Kalgoorlie. I'd like to thank the members of the committee: Luke Gosling; George Christensen; David Gillespie; Peter Khalil; Brian Mitchell, who went to every public hearing bar one, but, unfortunately—he's so good on the road and so bad in the chamber—he's not here at the moment; Ted O'Brien; Tim Wilson and the secretariat staff that we have worked with, particularly Tim, Susan and Emma. I'd like to note that the essence of this report was also about how much wealth is extracted from an area and how much wealth stays there. Australia is envious, in places such as Central Queensland, as to where our Dallas is and where our Houston is. These areas have been the beneficiaries of the major oil wealth in the East Texas oilfields. We have an approximate wealth in coal in Central Queensland, but we don't have the cities that other places, such as the United States, have. The question that is always posed is: where has this wealth gone? It is not much use to the people of Emerald and it's not much use to the people of Rockhampton if the wealth from their area ends up in Melbourne, Sydney or, in some instances, London. The report also talks about coal seam gas and how we can make sure that people on the land are partners in that industry, rather than just being exploited by that industry, to make sure that the beneficiaries of the wealth that resides in that area is seen in the towns and in the commercial hubs of that area. I think it's also worth saying that, with the delivery of this report, it is great to see the collegiate spirit that was expressed by the committee members. So often what people see of politics is this chamber, and yet that is only a very minor part of what happens in this building and of what happens in politics. This committee report showed that, working together, we cannot only deliver a good report but get changes that are immediate and substantial and that make a huge difference to the lives of the people in the industry. 15:22 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon by leave—Thanks to the chair of our committee who did a good job leading us through what I think has culminated in a great report being tabled today that, as the chair just said, will have some positive affects for people living in regional areas in particular. As the chair did, I want to thank the members of the committee and, in particular, the committee secretariat, Susan Cardell; the inquiry secretary, Emma Banyer; Tim Brennan; Tegan Scott and Tamara Palmer. I want to thank everyone who wrote into the committee for this inquiry, especially those who prepared submissions and all the witnesses who gave evidence as we travelled around the country—thank you. I'll just make the quick point that I was very glad that we were able to get the hearing up to Darwin, to my electorate of Solomon. I'm glad the Territorians and peak industry groups also got to have their say, including the Minerals Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the NT Manufacturers Council, NT Farmers and Charles Darwin University. I won't go into too much detail, but I will just say that I think these recommendations essentially detail how we can improve the social licence of mining companies and strengthen relationships and partnerships between working communities and mining companies, between industry and governments and, indeed, between governments themselves. There were a number of recommendations that suggested ways that we could increase social licence of mining companies. There were recommendations that the federal government consult with state and territory governments on existing legislation and frameworks with a view to increasing that social licence for mining companies to work in regional areas of Australia. Obviously, our sincere hope is that regional areas of Australia are strengthened through that partnership with mining companies and with industry. Just quickly, on payment terms—and the chair mentioned this—the committee came to a belief that payment terms that were unreasonable were having a really negative effect on the reputation of mining companies in some regions. This has a flow-on effect on the community and is detrimental to growth and sustainability and to the functioning of those businesses. For these reasons, the committee recommends that, if the industry does not get its act together, government should legislate maximum payment terms. In developing the regions, one thing I think is worthy of note is some of the positive recommendations that were made about local employment, including Indigenous employment, in these regional areas. We all know that FIFO is an issue for regional Australia, and we want our regions to be resilient and sustainable. So we need to get the balance right, and we also need to make sure that there is a workforce in regional areas to service the mining industry, because that will be good for regional areas of Australia and it can be good for mining companies. I will just quickly finish up by saying that the skills that mining companies will require into the future will require a workforce which we hope can be local as much as possible, but which obviously needs to be trained with the skills needed by the industry. Part of that is funding of TAFE, funding of proper education opportunities and reskilling where possible so that local people living in those regional areas have a great opportunity to have those jobs in those regions, and that would have a great effect for families living in regional areas. In conclusion, I want to thank everyone that worked with the chair and me. It's great that the other members of the committee will have an opportunity to make some commentary as well. Through these recommendations, which were derived from consultation with our community and the regional areas of Australia, it is our great hope that regional areas of Australia will get a fair go and a better go and that that will make us better and stronger as a nation. Thanks to all who contributed to this report. 15:29 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 77 15:29 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade 77 Report 77 15:29 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Compassion, not commerce: an inquiry into human organ trafficking and organ transplant tourism. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ANDREWS HK5 by leave—The development of human organ transplantation surgery over the past half century has been a blessing for hundreds of thousands of otherwise terminally ill patients all over the world. Since the first kidney was successfully transplanted in 1954, organ transplantation techniques and anti-rejection medications have rapidly developed. The act of organ donation is a tremendous demonstration of the power of compassion to transform the lives of many people. Australia has a lot to be proud of in the field of organ transplantation. We are a world leader in successful transplant outcomes, and since the implementation of the organ and tissue donation reform program in 2008, our donation rate has more than doubled. Australian researchers, doctors and surgeons have led the world in terms of liver transplantation techniques in particular. Australian surgeons have pioneered paediatric liver transplants, segmented liver transplants and, notably, in 2006 at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney, a world-first kidney-liver-pancreas transplant was successfully undertaken. In 2017, 1,675 Australian lives were transformed by 510 deceased and 273 living organ donors. There were 832 kidney transplants, 281 liver transplants, 206 lung transplants, 98 heart transplants, 51 pancreas transplants, and one small-intestine transplant. Each of these transplants represents multiple changed lives, not only of recipients and donors—whether deceased or living—but of their families, friends, neighbours, colleagues and others. Organ donation and transplantation touches entire communities. Unfortunately for those Australians waiting for a new organ, demand for donor organs still outstrips supply. Around 1,400 Australians are currently waitlisted for a transplant. A further 11,000 are on dialysis, many of whom would benefit from a kidney transplant. It can take years for a suitable organ to become available. The average waiting time for a kidney transplant is three years. Approximately one person each week will die before they are able to receive an organ transplant. This shortfall is common to many countries around the globe, even those with donor programs. But there are still countries who have no organ donation and transplant program whatsoever. It is this gap between the number of people requiring organ transplants and the limited supply of freely donated organs which has generated a black-market trade in human organs throughout the world. With increased access to international markets, thanks to cheap air travel, and the ease with which potential donors may now be located, thanks to improvements in internet connections, organ trafficking has increasingly become a major problem for the international community. In this illicit commercial market of organ trafficking and so-called transplant tourism, desperate people, often facing certain death without a transplant, may travel far from their own countries to places such as Egypt, the Philippines, or Pakistan, paying tens of thousands of dollars and more, for an organ transplant where the donor is most likely in dire financial straits, and possibly exploited and unable to give free and informed consent to donation. The recipient faces much higher risks of infection, and lower levels of postoperative care than they would receive here in Australia. Organ trafficking—the unethical removal, transfer or commercialisation of human organs for transplantation outside legal frameworks—poses severe risks for both organ recipients and donors. It is an illicit trade that changes over time with developments in transplantation surgery techniques, the availability of medical infrastructure, uneven economic development, migration patterns, demographic trends, socio-economic exclusion, and the evolution of national and multinational criminal networks. This inquiry by the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade was prompted, in the first instance, by longstanding allegations by non-government organisations and individuals about alleged human organ harvesting and trafficking occurring in one specific country, but it quickly became clear, especially through input from expert witnesses, that human organ trafficking is a broad international problem encompassing many countries around the world. The organ trade has evolved and continues to evolve under the influence of forces of demand and supply, technical and medical advances, as well as changes in national and international regulation and law enforcement. The subcommittee has heard from medical practitioners, international bodies, government agencies, and human rights advocates. Their evidence was consistent: organ trafficking is a violation of the rights and dignity of people, and Australia must do more to stop people in our community travelling overseas to support it. What has also come to light is that judgements made about the extent and geographical focus of organ trafficking and transplant tourism a decade or more ago may have limited validity in relation to present trends and circumstances, and this report demonstrates that, without the collection of accurate data and adequate analysis, solutions will be difficult to create. This report examines the global prevalence of human organ trafficking and the scope of Australian participation within this illicit trade. The report further considers international frameworks to combat organ trafficking and organ transplant tourism and specifically recommends that Australia sign and ratify the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs. The report further recommends that the Australian government pursue a range of measures to strengthen Australia's involvement in international efforts to combat human organ trafficking, improve relevant data collection, support public health education programs, strengthen Australia's legal prohibitions on organ trafficking, and thoroughly investigate reforms that would enhance Australia's domestic organ donation program. It should be noted that surveys show that the majority of Australians—approximately 70 per cent—are willing to donate their organs and/or tissue when they die. In Australia, 90 per cent of families say yes to donation when their loved one is a registered donor. Despite this apparent support for organ donation, and a majority of Australians believing that registering is important, only one in three Australians are registered as donors. While 71 per cent of Australians think it is important to talk about organ donation with their family, only half—51 per cent—of Australians have held this discussion about whether they want to be a donor with their loved ones. This report largely deals with measures that are aimed at suppressing human organ trafficking and transplant tourism. However, a comprehensive solution to this grim trade must involve increasing Australia's rate of organ donation and harnessing the goodwill and overwhelming support of the community to ensure Australians can receive a life-changing organ transplant at home, without ever needing to consider entering the murky world of black-market organ transplantation. Compassion, not commerce, is the key. Finally, may I thank all the members of the subcommittee in particular who participated in this inquiry. I thank the members of the secretariat, who are in the chamber today, and all those who participated in the various discussions that the committee had during the course of the inquiry. I commend the report to the House, and I move: That the House take note of the report. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 79 15:37 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. National Broadband Network - Joint Standing 79 Report 79 15:38 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I present a corrigendum to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network entitled The rollout of the NBN in rural and regional areas: 2nd report of the 45th Parliament. BILLS 79 BILLS Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 79

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

Second Reading 79 15:38 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The question is that the amendment be agreed to. 15:38 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I think everyone in this place would agree that women should be safe whatever they are doing and wherever they are doing it in our society. Unfortunately, we're here today because they're not. Women don't necessarily feel—and they are not necessarily—safe, and women need to be safe in their communities, online, at home and in their workplaces. Unfortunately, we know that this is not the case with around 17 per cent of women over the age of 15 years, who report that they have experienced violence from a current or former partner. Our government is committed to addressing family and domestic violence. It is an issue that demands action on many fronts, and that is what we are doing. There is no one course of action that needs to be taken to solve this terrible issue—and, in fact, I think we can call it a crisis—in our society. We need to do a variety of things. The bill before us provides for a minimum standard of five days unpaid leave for all employees covered by the Fair Work Act. It is an important step to take now to add to the many, many other things we are doing to protect women and keep them safe from domestic violence and to try to prevent domestic violence. This bill adds to the suite of measures that we are taking and that we have already taken. Since we were elected in 2013, we have committed over $300 million to address family and domestic violence. In 2015, we committed $100 million through the Women's Safety Package, which provided crucial funding for 1800RESPECT, the national telephone and online counselling and information service, which ensures more women can get support when they need it. We also supported local women's caseworkers to coordinate support for women escaping domestic violence, including housing, safety and budgeting services. In 2016, we then committed a further $100 million under the Third action plan 2016-2019 of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. This plan set out an ambitious agenda. With the support of key stakeholders and the community, this ambitious agenda will substantially reduce domestic, family and sexual violence in Australia. But, of course, that's not all we are doing. We are developing the fourth action plan at the moment, and work on that plan is well and truly underway. As part of this process, the Minister for Women, the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer, co-chaired the COAG National Summit on Reducing Violence Against Women and their Children in Adelaide on 2 and 3 October this year. Our recent federal budgets have also demonstrated our commitment to addressing family and domestic violence. There were a number of measures announced in the 2017-18 budget. As I said, we have to do a range of things to address family and domestic violence. There is no one single solution; we need a range of measures. What we announced this year was $55.7 million for community legal centres so that we can provide frontline family law and family violence services to women who are in desperate need of that support at one of the most difficult times of their lives. We budgeted $10.7 million to family law courts to employ additional family consultants who prepare family reports to inform the court about risks that may be present to family safety in those cases. We provided $12.7 million to establish parent management hearings, a new forum for resolving family law disputes between self-represented litigants, and we provided $3.4 million to expand the national pilot program for specialist domestic violence units that provide wraparound legal and other support services to women who are experiencing or are at risk of domestic and family violence. There were further measures announced in the 2018-2019 budget, which included $22 million over five years to address the abuse of older Australians, which affects up to 20 per cent of women who are our senior citizens, and $14.2 million over four years for the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, to help make cyberspace safe for women, because, as I noted at the outset of my speech, it is not just in person that people are at risk; it is often online where women are suffering abuse and violence and where they are feeling unsafe. We also provided $6.7 million to maintain funding for DV-alert to continue its domestic violence response training for community frontline workers. These are the support people that are so crucial for women who find themselves in these awful circumstances. We also provided an additional $11.5 million for the national sexual assault, domestic and family violence counselling service, 1800RESPECT, over two years. 1800RESPECT has been a vital support service for so many people, and on 27 November this year we announced an additional $10.9 million to fund this service and ensure that it continues to deliver a trusted and valued service to the community. In November, the Minister for Women also delivered the first women's economic security statement, worth $109 million over four years, to shine a light on the obstacles to women in building their financial security and to focus on practical measures to help change that. We know that when women are financially independent, when they have financial security, they are more able to make the decisions and to leave if that's necessary to get themselves out of harm's way and to keep themselves safe. The measures in the statement to support women's economic independence are worth $35.6 million over four years, and they include several measures to help Australian women experiencing family and domestic violence. We have continued funding to specialist domestic violence units and health justice partnerships, which will also include financial counselling. We are extending early access to superannuation beyond terminal illness and severe financial hardship to those experiencing family and domestic violence so they can access funds that they may desperately need to help them get to safety. We're funding Good Shepherd Microfinance to provide no-interest loans to help 15,000 women experiencing family and domestic violence to access finance when they most need it, without high interest. These loans can be spent on things like relocating to somewhere safer, finding a new home, essential household items and also rental bonds, which can be a very large up-front expense that women may not have the cash on hand to provide for themselves. We're also funding legal aid commissions to support changes to family law that will ban cross-examination in certain cases where women are escaping family violence and where they fear cross-examination by their ex-partner. I'm pleased that these changes to family law under the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018 have passed the House, and I hope that the Senate will pass them as well. The bill before the House now is an important part of the support that working women who are experiencing family and domestic violence need. As I said, it is one of the many, many things that we need to do for women who find themselves in these terrible circumstances. Providing a minimum safety net of five days unpaid leave will provide women experiencing family and domestic violence with time off to deal with the impact of that violence, and it will ensure that they can be confident their job is protected while they do so. As I've already noted, our government is taking a number of steps to promote the economic security of women—not just women who experience domestic and family violence but women throughout all stages of their lives. We're supporting women to be financially independent, whether they are school leavers, jobseekers, new mums returning to the work force or senior Australians nearing retirement age. One of the most important things, as I noted earlier, is that women are financially independent and they can afford to make the decisions that they need to make for their best self-interest and to keep themselves safe if necessary. When you have a job, when you can provide for yourself, you can make those decisions if need be. We have added almost one million jobs to the Australian economy since September 2013, when we came to government. Significantly, 58 per cent of these jobs went to women, and the minister reminded the House of these fantastic statistics during question time today. In 2015-16 alone, around 90,000 more women than men joined the labour force. These are very encouraging statistics. These are excellent statistics. By contrast, when those opposite left office, women's full-time employment was going backwards, so I'm so proud that we have been able to see more women into work and more women into full-time work. What we're doing on our side of the House is helping women access the job market by providing affordable and accessible child care, because we know this is one of the biggest barriers for many women who want to return to work. We've started the national rollout of the ParentsNext program, which helps eligible parents prepare for employment, with approximately 96 per cent of participants expected to be women, including around 10,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. In the May budget we committed $64.3 million to establish a jobs and market fund to grow the National Disability Insurance Scheme workforce and service providers, because we know that women make up almost 80 per cent of employees in the health, social assistance and disability care industries. We've extended the pension work bonus to allow pensioners to earn more income without reducing their age pension, and mature-age women will benefit from expanded access to the Restart wage subsidy, offering an incentive of up to $10,000 to encourage businesses to hire and retain mature-age employees. Women aged between 45 and 70 will benefit from the Skills Checkpoint for Older Workers Program. When it comes time for women to retire, or when they want to retire, our government has provided a superannuation system that provides flexibility, sustainability and equity. We have introduced the low-income superannuation tax offset to support accumulation of superannuation for low-income earners. We have levelled the playing field by scrapping restrictions on who can make personal deductible contributions, benefitting 800,000 Australians, including women working in roles without access to formal salary sacrificing arrangements. In fact, in 2015-16 almost 320,000 low- and middle-income-earning women were paid $100 million in co-contributions. And of course we have also announced the Protecting Your Super package, which will help many, many women. We're assisting 1.6 million women who are still contributing to low-balance accounts by helping to protect their super as well. We know that the biggest risk to some of our senior Australian women is the retiree tax that the opposition wants to introduce should they to be elected to government. This is going to do a huge amount of damage to people who have worked very hard and saved very hard for their retirement. We know that women who have retired will be heavily impacted by that policy. Our government is doing a range of things to support women who are experiencing domestic and family violence, but we are not the only ones who are working to support them. I'd like to take this opportunity to recognise some of the wonderful work that local groups and organisations in my community do to keep women safe and to also keep their children safe and support them in their time of deepest crisis and fear. Just down the road from my electorate office is MarionLIFE Community Services, a not-for-profit community organisation that strives to provide meaningful, flexible and responsive care and support to individuals and families in need. MarionLIFE is led by chairman Peter Fowler and director Leighton Boyd and provides a range of services, including emergency relief supplies, financial counselling to help support economic security, and a community nursing service to support overall health and emotional wellbeing. Right next door to my electorate office is UnitingCare Wesley Bowden, who also do so much, especially for women and children in crisis in my community or in the south of Adelaide, with their Southern Adelaide office providing a range of different services. UnitingCare Wesley Bowden provides emergency respite care and the Child and Family Mental Health Program. I know that they provide particular support for children who really struggle to go to school during times of family upheaval, when they're in their moment of crisis, and they provide excellent economic advice and support and assistance as well. Another wonderful organisation in my electorate is Foodbank SA, who provide food and emergency food relief to so many people in need but particularly to families who may be in crisis. It's the largest hunger relief organisation in South Australia, and I've been very proud to support Foodbank SA in the work it's done. I have seen firsthand their wonderful contribution. As I've noted, this bill provides unpaid leave for women in domestic violence situations, and I'm proud to support the bill. (Time expired) 15:54 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018. Sadly, one Australian women per week, on average, is killed by her current or former partners, and one in three Australian women have experienced physical violence at some stage after they turned 15. In October this year alone, 11 women died violently at the hands of men in Australia. This is a national crisis. Domestic violence is the leading cause of death, disability and illness amongst women between 15 and 44 years of age. We know that there is no single answer to overcoming this scourge of domestic and family violence. We know that family and domestic violence is preventable. We know the policy response needs to be multifaceted. It must come, firstly, from strong leadership from government, business, unions and the community. We are seeing some leadership from business, the unions and even from some governments, but sadly not as much as we need from the Morrison government. This bill is evidence of that. Sadly, it is a missed opportunity from the Morrison government. While this bill does amend the National Employment Standards to provide domestic and family violence leave to award-reliant employees, it provides only five days of leave, and the leave is unpaid. I note it is a very small step in the right direction and thank those opposite for occasionally getting something right. I could make a comment about a stopped clock being right twice a day, but I won't. If the Prime Minister listened to women he might have a better understanding of why it is necessary for women to have access to paid domestic and family violence leave and why only five days leave is inadequate. Anyone who works with victims and survivors of domestic and family violence will tell you that the most dangerous time for a woman is when she is leaving a violent relationship. It often takes a very long time to get to the point where a woman is able to leave. Domestic violence is all about control. Perpetrators go to extreme lengths to ensure their victim does not have the physical and financial freedom to leave the violent relationship. It is important that employees who are suffering from domestic and family violence know they can take leave to attend to issues like obtaining a protection order against the perpetrator, arranging new, safe accommodation, obtaining legal advice, seeking medical attention or any combination of these four. It is equally important that a woman who is planning to leave a violent relationship is not adversely impacted from loss of income through unpaid leave right at the time when she needs to be as financially independent as possible. Labor announced almost a year ago that, if elected, a Shorten Labor government would introduce 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave into the National Employment Standards. Labor is leading on this issue. We know it is an important matter for all Australians. Many other organisations have also been calling for paid domestic and family violence leave, including the Law Council, the Catholic Women's League of Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commission, Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia, the ACTU and other individual unions. Some businesses have taken action themselves and provide domestic and family violence leave to their own employees. I commend these employers, such as Medicare, CUB, Telstra, the NAB, Virgin Australia, Aldi Australia, IKEA and Qantas, to name a few. Other governments have shown leadership and taken action to provide paid leave, such as New Zealand, where they have legislated a guaranteed 10 days paid domestic violence leave. We can't let the Kiwis beat us in this as well—it's bad enough that they win the rugby all the time. Queensland and Western Australia provide 10 days paid domestic violence leave to public sector employees. South Australia actually provides 15 paid days of leave, while Victoria and the ACT offer 20. Even the New South Wales Liberal government announced last week that they would provide 10 days paid leave for public servants. Surely Australia wants to be seen as a leader, not a trailing, plodding follower, but this deficient and belated policy is showing us to be just that. But it is hardly surprising, when we remember this government's appalling record of opposing domestic and family violence leave. Senator Cormann outright rejected the notion of domestic violence leave, saying: We just believe it's another cost on our economy that will have an impact on our international competitiveness. Senator Cash, speaking as the then Minister for Women, outrageously suggested that family and domestic violence leave would make women less attractive to employers, saying it would act as 'a perverse disincentive'. If you google 'out-of-touch inherited privilege', you'll come up with a photo of Senator Cash, surely. How could someone say such a thing? What an astonishing thing to say, especially when you are the person responsible for representing the interests of women in our federal parliament. How bizarre that you would ever think an employer might consider not employing a person because there is a possibility that they might be abused by their partner and require leave to keep themselves safe. This chaotic cluster of Liberals—I'm not going to use the term 'party'—just don't get it. In 2016 the Abbott-Turnbull government actually prevented 30 Public Service departments from providing for paid family violence leave in their enterprise agreements. The CPSU argued the Commonwealth should lead the way in providing paid family and domestic violence leave for its employees, but the coalition showed their true colours—that they are not truly committed to helping victims of family and domestic violence, even those employed by their own departments. For victims of family and domestic violence, their workplace can be a source of much-needed support, but it can also be a place where the perpetrator of the violence can readily target them. The University of New South Wales has reported that 19 per cent of Australian employees experiencing domestic violence actually reported harassment at their place of work. Just imagine the awful dilemma of a woman who has finally taken the very serious and dangerous step of leaving a violent relationship, knowing that the next working day the perpetrator of that violence will know where they are—and not only that, but they will know when they will be leaving that place of work. That is putting a vulnerable victim into an even more vulnerable and dangerous position. If victims of domestic violence don't have access to paid family and domestic violence leave, they won't have the option of not going to work to avoid their perpetrator and they won't have the ability to take immediate action to have a protection order put in place to stop the perpetrator from coming to their place of work to harass or threaten or even worse. What a difference it would make to the victim's ability to safely leave that relationship if they knew that the next day they would not be in a place where their perpetrator would be able to find them, and that they would be able to take immediate action to put in place a protection order so that the perpetrator would not be able to go to their place of work or to the place where they reside. These are important but simple things to put in place, but, to a woman leaving a violent relationship, this can be the difference between life and death. It is that serious. Without the ability to access paid family and domestic violence leave, victims will need to choose between their own and their children's safety or their continuing financial security. This is not fair. It is not fair and it is appalling that this government, which says it actually cares about family and domestic violence, is choosing to put victims in the invidious position of choosing between their family's safety and continuing to be able to put food on the table. The workplace is just one element, but an important one, in the family violence policy area. The Productivity Commission has reported that, sadly, victims of family and domestic violence have a more disrupted work history and are consequently on lower personal income, have had to change jobs more often, and are employed at higher levels in the casual and part-time workforce. Family and domestic violence has far-reaching adverse implications for victims, including disrupting their working life and lowering their ability to earn a permanent and well-remunerated wage. It is for that reason that it is important to legislate for an appropriate amount of paid domestic and family violence leave to be available to all employees and not just hope that it will be negotiated into workplace agreements. The women who need this leave the most will not be in a position to bargain effectively. There is a wider economic cost to family and domestic violence. The cost to production in the business sector was estimated by KPMG in 2016 as being around $1.9 billion for the 2015-16 year. The National Retailers Association estimates that almost 45,000 women working in that sector experience some form of family or domestic violence, with costs to the industry of approximately $62.5 million per annum in lost productivity, absenteeism and staff turnover. The National Retailers Association estimate the direct cost to employers for each instance of violence is about $1,404. Not having paid domestic and family violence leave in place is costing businesses now. We know victims of domestic and family violence already have a tough working experience. Labor have listened. We've listened to the experts and the people on the front line, the ones who every day are helping victims and their families escape from the horrors of family and domestic violence. The Women's Legal Service Queensland is in Annerley, which is in my electorate. For over 30 years they have been helping women and their children, all over Queensland ,who are suffering from family and domestic violence. Women's Legal Service and similar organisations like them know that action is needed now and governments need to lead the fight against family and domestic violence. Labor are committed to helping women leave violent and abusive relationships as quickly and as safely as possible. We have made this an immediate and urgent priority. Labor, if elected, will invest $18 million in funding for the Keeping Women Safe In Their Home program. We'll invest in advocacy and will make sure the victims of family and domestic violence are listened to. Labor will back laws prohibiting direct cross-examination by alleged perpetrators by boosting legal aid funding to meet the increased demand on legal aid. Labor is committed to legislating for 10 days paid domestic violence leave in the National Employment Standards. Family and domestic violence is not a fringe issue. It's not a women's issue. It's an issue for the whole of Australia; it's everybody's business. If we are ever going to truly combat family and domestic violence, we need everyone—governments, businesses, communities and families—to take it seriously and to see it as the crisis that it is, and we need to all work together. We can do it, but it will take strong leadership—leadership that, sadly, we're not seeing from this chaotic cluster called the Morrison government. Labor is prepared to lead on this issue. In a recent speech to the Our Watch reception in Canberra, the Leader of the Opposition set out the commitments of a Shorten Labor government if elected. We will develop and deliver a national 10-year plan to prevent violence against women and children. We'll establish a national advisory group—survivors, advocates, experts, counsellors, community lawyers and people on the front line who know what is needed and where. We'll continue to prioritise dollars and resources for prevention efforts and front-line services. We know how important it is to keep those services funded—money sure does make a difference. While not all victims of family and domestic violence are women, we know that Australian women are nearly three times more likely than men to experience violence from an intimate partner. A Shorten Labor government will listen to women. These aren't just words. We already know that half of the MPs in the Shorten government will be women. Labor supports this bill, but points out that it is sadly deficient. It does not go far enough to protect vulnerable victims of family and domestic violence. It is the policy of a government that does not listen carefully to women, that does not understand women and that, sadly, has a very obvious and public problem with supporting and keeping women engaged within the Liberal Party. This leave should be paid and it should be for 10 days. I repeat: this leave should be paid and it should be for 10 days. Family and domestic violence is a national crisis. It's everybody's business to prevent the scourge of family and domestic violence. It's everybody's business to make sure victims—and their families—can safely leave a violent relationship. It is the government's job to make sure that all workplaces fully support victims of domestic and family violence. So I call on the Morrison government to join with the Labor Party and commit to 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave. Do it right the first time. 16:07 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I too rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 and in support of the amendments moved by the member for Gorton. I am extremely disappointed that only two government members have seen fit to add their names to the speaking list on this important bill before the House—and one of those was added just hours ago, after Labor exposed this shameful fact to the House. I'm disappointed because I don't think there is a more urgent and pressing law and order issue in this country today than the menace of domestic and family violence. This is a very important bill but, as my Labor colleagues before me have said, it doesn't go nearly far enough. It falls well short of the 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave that women in this situation need in order to give them the best chance of escaping a violent relationship. Approximately one in four women, or 2.2 million women, and one in 13 men have experienced violence by an intimate partner since the age of 15. Today in Australia, like on any other day, police will respond to over 700 cases of domestic violence. One woman is killed in Australia by a partner or an ex every single week. Already this year, 63 Australian women have died due to violence. We have already well exceeded 2017's history of 54 deaths, and we are still one month out before the end of the year. While there is a growing awareness of the problem, there is nowhere near enough attention being paid to the solutions, particularly the support required for women. We know that around two out of three women who experience domestic violence are, in fact, in the workforce, so workplaces absolutely have to be part of the solution. We know that financial independence is one of the key predictors of successfully leaving a violent relationship, and access to a steady income can mitigate some of the effects of violence and provide one avenue out of abuse. Paid domestic violence leave is one important way in which to help achieve this. That is why domestic violence leave is so important. Leaving an abusive relationship can be costly. I will go into some of those expenses later, but the measures proposed in this bill simply don't go far enough. It's of no surprise that, when this government seeks to amend industrial relations laws to accommodate something like domestic violence leave, they couldn't bring themselves to get it right, unlike the Labor Party, which has been in consultation for two years across Australia with women, employers, peak bodies and organisations that have been either experiencing this in their own places or working in frontline services helping to assist. The government hasn't put in those hard yards. They're trying to play catch-up now by putting this bill in the House, but they haven't done their homework properly beforehand. The ACTU placed the costs of escaping a violent relationship at something like $18,000. That's what we're up against. This bill was, of course, not prompted by a sudden change of heart or a revelation to members opposite. It was prompted by the Fair Work Commission's decision to include five days of unpaid domestic and family violence leave into all the modern awards. This became active for 2.3 million workers on awards from August of this year. The government's proposed legislation will amend the National Employment Standards to extend this provision to all employees. It has taken a very long time to get here. Indeed, the government first committed to taking this action in March of this year, so why are we only talking about this in November? Since then we've had some 14 sitting weeks and dozens of bills that the government has considered far more pressing for this House to deal with and that have been coming before us. Those in this chamber have not prioritised women fleeing domestic violence until now. Labor support this bill in principle. Indeed, it was Labor that first committed to deliver family and domestic violence leave back in 2017. We came to this position, as I said, after extensive conversations with victims and survivors of domestic violence, frontline workers, businesses, unions and organisations that deal daily with the tragic impacts of domestic violence. Their overwhelming message that we received was that domestic violence is a workplace issue and that people who have experienced domestic violence deserve the time and support to escape without losing pay. People told us again and again that family and domestic violence leave should be a universal workplace right. Labor are glad that the government is finally starting to listen. Of course, this bill is a step in the right direction, but all of the evidence before us says it falls way short of what is needed. Too many women choose to stay in an abusive relationship because they simply don't have the money to leave. Others quit work, because they don't think they'll be able to maintain it and still do all of the things that are needed in order to flee a violent relationship. This is a horrific outcome, particularly when we know that maintaining a job is absolutely key to successfully escaping a violent relationship. We know that the most dangerous time for a woman is when she is leaving that violent relationship, and that it is a time when she needs all the support possible. Domestic violence leave crushes stigma and protects employees from discrimination. It shows women that their employer understands, supports and cares for them. It gives them the time and space they need to rebuild their lives, while maintaining their financial independence and, of course, it gives them the best chance of successfully building a new life for themselves. Leaving a violent relationship is traumatic. It can also be enormously demanding, exhausting and absolutely time-consuming. There are doctors appointments, trips to the police station, meetings with lawyers, counsellors, financial advisers and a whole host of other services, not to mention house inspections, applications and calls to real estate agents to find a new home. Then there is the locksmith to fix and continuously change the locks every time your violent partner tracks you down. And, of course, women with children are often finding new schools and making sure the mental and physical needs of their children are looked after. So it's clear that the government's plan for just five days of unpaid leave isn't good enough. Labor would like to see the government match our commitment for 10 days paid domestic violence leave. The cumulative stress of finding a safe place to live, seeking out legal advice, accessing counselling services and medical treatments should not be exacerbated by the fear of losing your job, or indeed the financial hit from the loss of income, because of having to take days off work. Yet, this is the very brutal reality for Australian women today. They simply can't afford to go without pay, especially with the extra costs of trying to find bonds, rent money, maybe buying furniture and having to pay for some of the specialist services and counselling services that are required. In making this unpaid leave, the government is essentially saying that only women who can afford to take leave without pay should be able to leave a violent relationship, and that is not the message we want to send to Australian women. Too often we hear members of the government bemoaning the scourge of domestic violence, but, when there is a real chance to do something meaningful about it, their actions rarely match the determination or strength of their words. Indeed, it was this government who removed the domestic and family violence provisions from some of Public Service enterprise agreements that it was negotiating. Some of the comments of government members on this matter have been deeply concerning. It wasn't long ago that the then employment minister, Senator Michaelia Cash, argued strongly against family and domestic violence leave. She even went as far as saying that, if it proceeded, women would lose their jobs. This is appalling and, of course, an absolute nonsense—a fig leaf for inaction. If you follow this argument to its conclusion, you might just as well say, 'We need to get rid of carers leave and maternity leave as they are disproportionately needed and accessed by women.' Around the same time, the finance minister, Senator Mathias Cormann, dismissed family and domestic violence leave as another cost to the Australian economy. This was revealed as a particularly shabby argument in light of the research done by the Australia Institute in 2016, a study which found that domestic violence leave wage payouts actually cost less than one-fiftieth of one per cent, or 0.02 per cent, of current payrolls. And even then these costs themselves are likely to be totally offset by the benefits to the company that they would receive in terms of reduced turnover and increased productivity. Without this provision, we know that some women are actually leaving work entirely when the pressure becomes too much, and I know this from women who have come to see me in my electorate office. By providing this extremely modest support, employers maintain an employee, rather than going through the expensive and time-consuming process of hiring and training a new person. They are likely to be rewarded with a loyal, committed staff member, who appreciates the support they have been given. It is worth noting at this point that the private sector is well ahead of the government when it comes to this issue. In fact, there is a terrific rollcall of big household names that have already instituted paid domestic violence leave. I know that my colleagues have mentioned them before, but companies like Telstra, NAB, IKEA, Qantas and Virgin are leading the way in supporting their staff. In fact, between the beginning of 2016 and the middle of 2017 there have been over 1,000 agreements with at least 10 days of paid domestic violence approved under the Fair Work Act. This is because these businesses know that it's not only the right thing to do, morally, but it also makes sense economically, despite the nonsense being peddled by the finance minister. In fact, there is a cost, but it's for the inaction. Indeed, anything that discourages a woman from leaving violent relationships not only hurts her, her children and her community but it has great, broader economic impacts for our nation. In 2016, domestic violence was estimated to cost the business sector $1.9 billion, but it's not just business that is moving to enshrine family and domestic violence leave. Indeed, the Queensland, Australian Capital Territory and Western Australian governments have all implemented 10 days paid domestic violence leave. South Australia offers 15 days and Victoria has 20. So, every Liberal state has now enshrined paid domestic violence leave, and it's not just Australia. In July this year, New Zealand also agreed to guarantee 10 days paid leave for workers experiencing family and domestic violence. So, again, like so many other issues, federal Liberal governments find themselves isolated, behind the times and completely out of step with the country and with community opinion. We also need to recognise that paid family and domestic violence leave is just a start when it comes to addressing the menace of domestic violence. There is much more work to be done. Labor has a longstanding commitment to invest an additional $88 million for a new safe-housing fund to increase housing options. We've also committed to boosting legal aid funding to $49 million to meet the increased demand on services resulting from changes following reforms to the cross-examination laws in the Family Court system. I applaud the announcements of last week—the commitments from a future Shorten Labor government, if elected. To conclude, whilst this bill is a step in the right direction, it's nowhere near Labor's commitment. It falls well short of what our victims and survivors of domestic violence need and what all of those who work in frontline services need. I would like to pay a special tribute to those working in organisations in my electorate like Nova For Women and Children, Jenny's Place, Trisha's House, the Hunter Women's Centre and Got Your Back Sista. These are the women who are working tirelessly on the frontline to end the scourge of violence against women and children. (Time expired) 16:22 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie It is really pleasing to be able to stand here and support, albeit with reservations, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018, a piece of legislation that is about having some action in helping women and their families to escape domestic violence. We are supportive of this bill, which will formally establish the right for all workers to five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave, but that's the kicker—it's the unpaid bit of it. That unfortunately makes this legislation a bit tokenistic. Clearly, the government is following, not leading, on this issue, following a decision by Fair Work Australia. What we really need to see is paid domestic violence leave, and that would require a government to lead on that issue. Sadly, we're not seeing that. This is a Liberal government that has said a lot of words about domestic violence in the two and a half years that I've been in this place, but there has been so little action. What the amendment today will allow for is that workers can maintain secure employment and be able to access services and do the things they need to do to escape violence. Many of those things are only able to be done in normal nine-to-five business hours. While there is no doubt it is a step in the right direction, it is a pretty small step and it certainly doesn't go far enough. I think we should just look at the problem that we face. One woman a week will be killed due to domestic violence in Australia. That is really nothing short of an epidemic. It's absolutely a national tragedy. For every life lost there are enormous consequences for families and for children. One in six Australian women have experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or former partner. Over 60 per cent of women who experience violence from a current partner are working, so this is not just something that affects you in the privacy of your own home. It affects you every moment of every day in your workplace, when you're picking kids up from school, when you're trying to cook the dinner at night. It affects every moment of your life if you're in a violent relationship. We also know that when a woman is able to leave a violent relationship, that's when she is most at risk. It's the single most dangerous time for her. The newspapers have far too many stories showing just what that danger looks like. The practicality of it is that the cost of leaving an abusive relationship is high. There is the cost of relocation, maybe even including breaking a lease; medical and counselling bills; moving house costs; or even the loss of access to a car. Then there is the time involved. It doesn't take hours to sort out legal and medical things, new schools for children, new child care arrangements—it takes days and weeks. I have not been in a violent relationship, but I have had to suddenly change where I live as a result of a fire destroying my house. That experience of one moment having a place to live and the next moment not gave me a tiny insight into the logistics of it—changing addresses on everything: your licence, your credit card, your Medicare card; doing the logistics of re-establishing your life, let alone finding somewhere to live at short notice, including with children. So I really think that when we look at the number of days here, five days unpaid leave is barely scratching the surface of what may be required in a worst-case scenario for families, for women, for their children. The Australian Services Union is in a unique position to see the importance of paid domestic violence leave. Their workers are in the front line of family violence. They are in refuges, they are in women's health services, they are in community groups. These are the people who pick up the pieces when lives fall apart and support women and their children going through the whole gamut of domestic violence. The ASU recognises that their own workers should have access to paid domestic violence leave as well. They recognise that paid domestic violence leave prevents further harm being done to someone's long-term health and wellbeing and reduces the risk of that person facing poverty and homelessness. So really we're talking about something that at the right time makes an enormous difference to what follows. There's no doubt this place needs to do more to support survivors of domestic violence. Rosie Batty has made the point that knowing her workplace supported her while she had to leave to do things like attending court hearings would have made a real difference. The workplace can sometimes be an escape from the violence, but it can be possibly the single most supportive environment to follow through on your decision to leave. Last year Labor announced that a Shorten Labor government would introduce 10 days of paid domestic violence leave into the National Employment Standards. We have listened to survivors, to frontline workers, to businesses, to the union movement and to organisations who deal with domestic violence daily, and their message is really clear. It's so clear that one government that very rarely gets what the community wants, the New South Wales Liberal government, has actually introduced 10 days paid domestic violence leave for New South Wales public sector employees. I congratulate them on that. I'm pleased to see that they understand the impact it can have on people, not just on people but on workplaces as well. The New South Wales government has brought in their 10 days of paid domestic and family violence leave per year for every public sector employee, which includes, of course, teachers, nurses and police. That will come in from 1 January next year. I particularly note the words that were said when they made that announcement. The Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Pru Goward, with whom I was a journalist in this place more than 30 years ago, said this: Paid work is critical in providing financial stability to people experiencing domestic and family violence, which is why the NSW Government is introducing this important reform to leave entitlements. So it is a purely pragmatic decision as well as a hugely supportive decision for a government to make, and it is very disappointing that this government has not seen the logic of it. It has been noted already in this chamber, but I should also note that New Zealand has brought in 10 days paid domestic violence leave. The way they saw it was that it was part of a whole-of-society response, really signalling that this issue is not something that police alone deal with or courts alone deal with. So there is symbolism to this as well, particularly where we're talking about paid domestic violence leave. One of the arguments put by those opposite, and others, for not mandating paid domestic violence leave is that it is a cost. But, honestly, good small-business employers wouldn't think twice about giving their staff time off if they knew domestic violence was involved. There might not be a legal obligation to intervene, but, as a small-business employer, I certainly would have felt I had a moral obligation to my staff and to my team. Small businesses do know the economic costs of domestic violence to their business, as do large corporations, and the costs are high. The figures vary between researchers, but they're in the millions of dollars. That is what's currently being lost because of a lack of action on paid domestic violence leave. Some of those costs include lost productivity, absenteeism and staff turnover. An academic working in the gender-related-violence studies area, Ludo McFerran's work says that it's a mistake for businesses to think that domestic violence is a personal issue that doesn't affect the workplace. In fact, he points out, all staff in a workplace are affected. He tells with brutal honesty the reality: that victims of domestic abuse talk to their co-workers, that it is often these people who try and help them, and that, then, that's the very thing that puts the co-workers at risk. So the message that Ludo gives to employers is that domestic violence ends up costing them money through lost productivity, but it also affects the safety of all staff—yet another good reason to be extending this five days unpaid leave into something more meaningful. There are already small businesses in my electorate doing enormous things to support their employees. I'm not going to name the business and I'm not going to name the exact location, but there is a business in my electorate in the Blue Mountains where one of the staff members did need to leave. They were in a violent relationship and they needed to leave. They needed to go a long way away. This business didn't think twice. This was a valued staff member, so they supported this person in leaving and in relocating to another city. And it wasn't just short-term support, they have continued to employ this person, who now works remotely and does her job for this business to the same high standard that she was doing it before. It was a small business that was willing to make some adaptations to make it work, and that will have changed the life outcome for this woman. So there are small businesses who go well beyond that five days leave, because they know that retaining valuable employees is so important and that, actually, a bit of flexibility and a bit of help can improve productivity. People who have experienced domestic violence do need support, and, for many, their workplaces will have some of the most supportive mechanisms that they have around them. We know big companies are also already taking far more action on this issue than this parliament is taking today. Many companies already provide 10 days paid domestic violence leave, including companies like Carlton & United Breweries, Telstra, NAB, Virgin Australia, IKEA and Qantas. These employers and many others are really paving the way to help reduce the stigma that often accompanies domestic violence. Many of Australia's unions have been campaigning for paid domestic and family violence leave over many years and that has led to some subsequent coverage in many Australian workplaces. But this parliament has a role to play, and we really could be doing more. We could do more than five days unpaid leave. Ninety-four per cent of employers agree that employers should take a leadership role in educating their workforce about respectful relationships between men and women, and I know many workplaces would be willing to take a next step to be able to support staff and, ideally, retain those staff as they move through very difficult circumstances. The effects of domestic violence are not only felt while the abuse is ongoing. They can reverberate for many years after the violence has stopped, and this has substantial consequences for career progression and also for potential future earnings. Where someone has had to leave their job, where their leave has run out and they've exhausted all other avenues and felt they had no other option but to leave work to be able to escape their situation, that's where we do even greater economic damage, not just to that individual and her family but to our whole economy. Victims of domestic violence are more likely to experience food insecurity, to struggle to find affordable housing and to cover the basic essentials like utility bills. Domestic violence victims are more likely to experience anxiety over their ability to support their children, even when compared to others on low incomes. In fact, it's all intensified for low-income women. Whether it's a few hours out of a day that someone misses or it's a whole day, a few days a week or a few months out of the year, all that missed employment translates into lost income. Providing paid family violence leave means we're not asking victims to choose to forgo the support that they need for the sake of financial security. I think that's a very minimal thing for us to be able to do. Certainly Labor is committed to doing this and making sure that victims may be better able to weather the storm of domestic and family violence. We have our $88 million Safe Housing program and $49 million additional for legal aid funding, if we are successful at the next election. Along with things like banning cross-examinations, which we have called for for a very long time, so that victims of domestic violence cannot be cross-examined by the perpetrator, these are some of the things that we can do. Our announcement last week of an $18 million anti-domestic-violence program is another step to make sure that, as a parliament, as a society and as an economy, we're doing everything we can to make this place better for those who have found themselves in a violent situation but have the bravery to leave that situation. 16:37 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair The ACTU president, Michele O'Neil, said this recently: In 2018 women escaping violent relationships should not have to choose between their income and their safety. And they should not have to spend their retirement savings or take on debt. She said: Paid family and domestic violence leave is vital for women escaping violence. It's the right thing to do … It certainly is. It's important for the social and economic benefit of this country. It will have a macro impact on this country, but it's important for women and their children particularly. But, as with so much of what we see in terms of reform in this country, this government has to be dragged kicking and screaming, and it has given a lukewarm response to the necessity of dealing with domestic violence and helping women struggling in circumstances where they're in violent relationships. This is an inadequate response by this government. It's—as many of my colleagues have talked about—very small steps undertaken by a government that really is not listening to the voices of women, whether that is in its preselection processes, in policy or in any other aspect of our economic and community life. I commend the Australian Services Union for a very fine submission, dated 24 September 2018, to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. That was to the inquiry into the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018. It's a tremendous report—31 pages—by the Services Union. The Services Union is one of Australia's largest unions. It has 135,000 members. But it's where it's membership can be found which is so important and is the reason why this particular union's submission is so cogent and so authoritative when it comes to this particular matter. It's members can be found in women's domestic violence court advocacy services, youth and child protection services, out-of-home care for children and young people at risk, family support services, health and mental health services, aged-care services, migrant and settlement services, prisoner rehabilitation, and I could go on and on, and I could include, by the way, community legal services that help in frontline legal service delivery for women who are facing these challenges in civil matters and in apprehended violence proceedings or, indeed, under the Family Law Act. The Services Union is a very skilled practitioner union in terms of this particular area, so this submission is really important. It outlines particularly the history and the challenges we face in this country, the impact of domestic violence and why universal entitlement leave is critical to our country. What we see in the legislation here is simply five days unpaid domestic violence leave. It is really pathetic to think that that's what's going to be included in the National Employment Standards, when it needs to be paid leave. Before I was elected to this place, I practised for more than 20 years in the area of family law and child protection. I was an accredited family law specialist and a senior partner of a Brisbane CBD law firm. I dealt every day in this particular area and had thousands, if not tens of thousands, of clients who were women who had suffered from domestic violence, which takes many insidious forms: family isolation, financial domination, religious persecution and control of people's lives. The impact is massive for the women I dealt with, in terms of their lives. But the intergenerational impact on their children can't be underestimated as well. It has been estimated by KPMG that the impact on the Australian economy until 2015-16 was $21.7 billion a year, in terms of the cost of violence against women. Imagine the impact in the workplace. We get lectures from those opposite all time about listening to the voices of corporate Australia and free enterprise. Certainly, in terms of enterprise agreements, corporate Australia and free enterprise are way ahead of this government with respect to the provision of paid domestic violence leave. I think this government, which claims that it listens to the voices of the captains of industry, should listen and have a look at what is being done in this space to protect women from the challenges and ravages of domestic violence. If they listened to the voices of industry, they would see that many, many organisations, whether they're local councils or big companies such as Telstra, Woolworths, Qantas, NAB, Westpac, the Australian Retailers Association, Virgin Australia—a whole range of these particular companies—have paid domestic violence leave policies or clauses in their enterprise agreements. A number of state governments have dedicated paid leave for public sector employees. Why is it that this government refuses to do the right thing, as Michele O'Neil, the president of the ACTU, mentioned in a recent press release? It's inexplicable that this government has to be dragged kicking and screaming. Whilst we'll support this legislation—because, inadequate though it is, it's certainly a very small step in the right direction—why can't they do the right thing by women? Why can't they do the right thing by those people who are fleeing domestic violence situations, often homeless, often with the challenges and all the problems—the anxiety, often the depression and the threats of violence continuing from their former partners? Why can't they do the right thing? Why can't they come into this place with an amendment to the legislation to do the right thing? This leave here would be conditional upon experiencing family and domestic violence and needing to do something to deal with the impact of that family and domestic violence that it is impractical to do outside their ordinary hours of work. That's what they're doing here with the legislation. We need giant leaps in this space. Giant leaps are being made by corporate Australia. Giant leaps are being made by state governments, Labor and coalition, including the Labor governments in Queensland and WA. We have a crisis in this country. Every day police are called to over 700 instances of domestic and family violence across the country. These are challenges for the men and women of the various police forces who face these things—what courage, what bravery. They're often young men and women who are serving in our police forces around the country. Think of them having to deal with perpetrators of domestic violence, who are often armed with weapons and implements, inflicting that assault and violence upon their former partner or partners—and police officers have to front up there. Imagine the challenges they face, and imagine the challenges of the women who are facing this each and every day—700 people who may not have the comfort of being able to miss a day's pay to go and make a police statement, to attend a court hearing, to seek medical assistance, or to search shelters for temporary accommodation. As I said, domestic and family violence manifests itself in so many different forms—physical, emotional and financial. We're also living in a time when intimate images are used as blackmail or revenge against a current or former partner. We've seen progress in this space at a state level. But the figures are stark, and many of my Labor colleagues have talked about this. Tragically, 63 Australian women died this year at the hands of a current or former partner. More needs to be done. Figures from the advocacy group Our Watch indicate that one in six Australian women have experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or former partner, and one in four Australian women have experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner. Australian women are nearly three times as likely as men to experience violence from an intimate partner. Australian women are almost four times as likely as men to be hospitalised after being assaulted by their spouse or partner. These statistics are really alarming. In my electorate we have a number of organisations that do tremendous work. One of those organisations is the Domestic Violence Action Centre, whose Ipswich community-based project Being Heard has won crime prevention and child protection awards. I attended one of the award ceremonies recently in Goodna. This program has a focus on education and child safety. It's a program initiative of Sinead Nunan, with funding from the Queensland government and the Ipswich City Council. This is a fantastic service, by the way. The program is geared towards high school students in the Ipswich and West Moreton region. DVAC has expanded beyond Ipswich into Toowoomba and the Darling Downs. Part of the program is advocacy and prevention and it's engaging with young people from high schools. Students undertake a semester of domestic and sexual violence education to recognise, experience and respond to controlling and abusive behaviours—those sorts of behaviours, of course, are forerunners to the issues addressed by this particular legislation. It's a practical, pragmatic, hands-on approach to learning about family and domestic violence and healthy relationships, aimed at educating young people aged 15 to 18 from diverse backgrounds in our community—multicultural communities, Indigenous communities and people from the LGBTIQA community. This is really important. Young people are the key—that really critical force in reducing instances of domestic violence, and many are currently experiencing unhealthy relationships or family violence, and it's impacting their school life. It's not just the work life of people; it's their school life and setting the foundation for future relationships in adulthood. Others are supported by friends or extended family through their experience of family and domestic violence. Happy, healthy and contented young people are the best learners, and it's important that we make sure that they are supported. When they're 15 to 18, often they are working part-time as well, and it is important that their wellbeing is guarded. At this point in time in my electorate office in Blair, in Ipswich in South-East Queensland, you'll see what we've described as an 'orange lady'. It's an inanimate object at the front of my electorate office. I recently attended the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. I joined with Ipswich and the Zonta Club of West Moreton Area. The launch of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence runs up to 10 December, which coincides with World Human Rights Day. The theme of this year's 16 days of activism is 'End gender based violence in the world of work,' which promotes dignity for women in the workplace. How propitious that we're debating this point and this piece of legislation today when that's the theme of Zonta's 16 days of activism campaign across my electorate and elsewhere. The campaign is focusing on highlighting the prejudice and discriminatory behaviours which women in the workforce experience, with a view to eliminating this as a contributing factor to unequal power relationships at the heart of gender based violence. While the push to prevent workplace harassment of women has been given a focus of intention in the past year, it's important to recognise that often the situation is reversed and women require a workplace which provides a safe and supportive haven from the family and domestic violence experienced at home. That's why so many employers and the unions that I mentioned, in particular The Services Union, are to be commended for the wonderful work they do. We announced that, if elected, we would implement 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave. Paid domestic violence leave is a policy which is we took to the last election and it remains our policy. We're committed to it. We're making sure that, if we do that, we'll provide additional funding for legal aid and help for women in their homes. We will make sure that women, particularly those who have had their Sunday penalty rates cut, will be in a position where they don't have to show up for work on Monday following an incidence of domestic violence. A woman in that circumstance can be worried she won't be able to put food on the table or pay the school fees or the health costs for her family. We think this is particularly important. I was pleased to see that we are following the lead of the Palaszczuk government, in my home state, which provides 10 days leave on full pay for full-time and part-time workers, and 10 days unpaid leave for long-term casual employees. The Western Australian McGowan government has done a similar thing with respect to public servants, making sure they get access to paid domestic violence leave. As is often the case in our region, New Zealand has been at the forefront of this. We are simply catching up; they've had this since July last year. I want to pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for the recent announcement that we will provide critical funding to Keep Women Safe In Their Home and that we will restore the advisory group on the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children, which the Abbott government got rid of. They should never have done that; that was a tragedy. Restoring the advisory group will assist in terms of advice and development of a new 10-year national plan for tackling domestic violence, pushing this important issue through the COAG process. The legislation before the chamber is simply not good enough but will get our vote. 16:52 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon I welcome the opportunity to speak on the legislation before the House, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018. It is quite disappointing though that it does not go far enough. It's heartening to hear my colleagues on this side of the House talk about the reasons why this piece of legislation doesn't go far enough to support those victims of domestic violence who, as we know, are predominantly women, predominantly on lower incomes, who do need paid leave of at least 10 days to ensure they can do what they need to do to make their lives better not just for themselves but for the children they may have in their care. We know the facts of domestic violence in this country and we know how shocking it is. We know that every single week in this country at least one woman is killed by a partner or a family member as a result of domestic violence. It is a national crisis. This government has been slow to act on this. When you have around 800,000 women in this country experiencing violence at home this year, it is quite shameful that this government is not taking this matter seriously in supporting the victims of family violence. This piece of legislation was introduced on 13 September. It has taken until now, December, to debate it. This legislation was on the books to debate all last week, with one member of the government speaking on it. It saddens me that that is the case with this parliament on such an important issue. The minister at the time said that they would introduce legislation as soon as possible to extend the same entitlements that other workers have to access family and domestic violence leave. That was in March this year. We're now at the end of the year, in the last sitting week, and we're just getting around to debating this. Hopefully, we'll have this debated today. Labor recognises how hard it is for victims of domestic and familial violence to leave a relationship. It's heartening to hear people on this side, my colleagues, express their understanding of this issue and what we will do to support those people that are experiencing domestic violence with 10 days paid leave. We know how long it can take for victims and their children to recover from domestic violence. There are sacrifices and challenges for surviving family members. Meeting with police, lawyers, real estate agents, schools and doctors all takes time. All those services are available during the work day. Counsellors, schools and childcare centres all operate within business hours. It takes hours upon hours to find somewhere new to live, pack up belongings, move to a new house, find a new school or childcare arrangements, and talk to children's support groups, doctors, counsellors and teachers. That all takes time, and that all happens during a work day. Changing bank accounts and other financial arrangements, appointments with Centrelink to apply for or change personal benefits, meetings with police and lawyers to apply for protection orders and, of course, attending court hearings all take place during working hours. The victim has to take time off work to do these things to keep themselves and their family safe. They should be able to count on continuing to receive an income and being able to go back to work. To escape a violent relationship, victims have to take that time off work. There is absolutely no other way around it. The Senate did an inquiry into this legislation, and one of the bodies giving evidence was the Australian Human Rights Commission. The government senators' report mentions the interaction with work. The report says: Financial security can be a critical determinant of victims' ability to escape violent and abusive relationships. Employment improves affected workers' ability to remove themselves and their children from abusive family relationships and maintain, as far as possible, a decent standard of living. So my question is: why should a victim of family violence be financially impacted because they are a victim of family violence? Why is that the case? It's pleasing that so many businesses in this country are supporting what Labor will do if elected, providing 10 days of paid leave, because they understand that a victim of family violence should not be financially disadvantaged because of what they have to go through. We know that the most dangerous time for a woman, or any victim of family violence, is when she or he is leaving a violent relationship. Without paid leave, victims simply don't have time or resources to find a new safe place to live. We on this side see and understand how difficult it is, and we understand the costs: removalists, new utility connections, new phone lines, lawyers, rental property bond plus rent paid in advance, court costs, child care, counselling, and new house set-up with appliances, food and furniture. Family violence victims are telling us what they need, and Labor is listening to what they need. To leave, they need 10 days of paid leave. In my electorate of Braddon, family violence is, sadly, very prevalent. I come from a place where multigenerational family violence has been happening for decades and is still happening today. Victims have less opportunity to escape. Traditionally, we just haven't had the services available. We don't have enough lawyers. Many of our residents are isolated, with less public transport. They are in regional spaces where many just aren't aware of services and options. As a result, family and domestic violence in regional areas like Tasmania's north-west is highly complex and will often take the victims a lot longer to process. With limited services and long waiting lists, the trauma increases and is compounded. Clients of organisations like the Burnie office of Women's Legal Service Tasmania often require numerous appointments with a counsellor before enough trust is built so they can feel safe enough to share their experiences. These clients often have to travel a long way just to sit down with someone for an hour to talk about their domestic violence experiences. I would like to at this point pay tribute to the departing CEO of the Women's Legal Service, Susan Fahey, for the amazing work that she has been doing in this space for about 16 years in the Women's Legal Service and her strong advocacy on issues like this. I wish her all the best in what happens for her in the new year. The people who come to services like the Women's Legal Service come from all walks of life. They come from all sectors across the workforce in my electorate, whether it be mining, forestry, dairy or tourism. They are people who are suffering significant trauma, shame and fear and are dealing with the enormous stigma that is still attached to these experiences. In situations of domestic and family violence, a child's safe place should be their school; for adults, it should be and is their place of employment. Adults may feel that they have nobody else in their life whom they can trust enough to disclose their situation to. For many victims, their workplace is their only support mechanism. Their work colleagues, and sometimes their employer, may be their only support in these situations. Among the claims as to why the government is not putting forward paid leave is the impact on small business. But I doubt whether there would be very many employers who would not want to value their staff and support them in any way possible—and giving them paid leave is the best way to do that. They come to work sometimes after being up all night, not only because of being terrified and terrorised by an abusive or drunken partner but also because of dealing with children who are frightened and confused. They come to work to feel safe, but often their capacity to do the job is impacted: they become unreliable in getting to work, or they start making mistakes at work. A national employment standard that offers a victim five days of unpaid leave is inherently cruel and is moving well behind the pace that is currently being set by many employers on this issue. It is not safe, it is not supportive, and it is using a system as a means to perpetuate the violence. The minute an employer says, 'Here are your five days of unpaid leave to attend court,' they are penalising the victim. This legislation will make it even harder on domestic violence victims, and easier on domestic violence perpetrators. It will impact on the organisational climate, and on an employee's sense of wellbeing in their workplace. It lacks compassion and it lacks understanding across the entire community. What this government is offering is a belated effort and, frankly, it's completely inadequate. The Minister for Women has said: People do have access to personal and carers leave … people do have the ability to take unpaid leave … Under this government, that's the price you pay for being a victim of family violence. The former Minister for Women is on the record as saying that domestic violence leave would be a 'perverse disincentive' to employ female workers. I mean, that's just ridiculous. What happens with the extra six million predominantly women workers that this leave will cover? Does it mean that they're not going to be employed, because they are going to take unpaid leave? Those extra six million workers will be covered, regardless, under this new legislation. But how many are likely to come forward and seek the support required from their employer if their employer makes the process difficult for them to come forward at all? They are faced with choosing between getting help or toughing it out and paying the bills. There was a dissenting report put forward with the Senate report on this issue. Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia gave evidence that one in four Australian households possess less than $1,000 in cash savings, whilst people suffering from family and domestic violence suffer a 25 per cent loss of income associated with abuse. Victims are therefore more likely to experience food insecurity, struggle to find affordable housing, and are less likely to be able to cover the basic essentials like utility bills. Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia stated—and this is in the report—that paid leave is essential in achieving safety for victims. But what is this government doing by not giving that leave to over six million Australian workers? Workers should not be forced to choose between an income and safety. I think that's the crux of what we're talking about here today. We should also acknowledge the work that we've been doing on this side of the House. The government seem to think that the only option for a victim of family violence is to leave the home, and that, under this government, they have the right to access superannuation early. This is a cost to that person, which may be helpful in the short term but in the long term is a cost, because that money will no longer be there for them in retirement. But if they had paid leave, they wouldn't necessarily have to dip into their superannuation. We know that the victims of family violence are predominantly women and that they have less money in their superannuation funds, but that's the option which the government have put forward. They also put forward an increase in Good Shepherd Microfinance under the No Interest Loan Scheme, which, again, is a good incentive for people who need to maybe buy a new fridge. But there is this perverse understanding that all victims of family violence must leave the home. Therefore, most victims of family violence are women, they have low and less income, and they're going to go into debt for a considerable period of time to pay off this loan because they need to leave the home. On the other hand, while Labor are supportive of these measures, they certainly do not address the issue that not all victims of family violence should leave the home and should be financially worse off for doing so. I'm really pleased that Labor will not only invest $18 million over three years to ensure that Keeping Women Safe In Their Home continues after the government had confirmed it was cutting funding to the program—this is a program to keep victims of family violence in their homes—but also commit to a new 10-year plan for reducing violence against women and their children. I think this is important to note, because the government doesn't seem to really understand that it's also important for women and victims of family violence to feel safe in their homes. This program will provide practical help for women and children in their homes, allowing them to live safely away from perpetrators, through expert safety assessments and safety planning; home safety upgrades and devices such as new locks, alarms, cameras and safety phones; screening for bugs to ensure privacy; and supporting women in enforcing apprehended violence orders. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their home. Women should not have to choose between their homes and their safety, and neither should their children. This is something that the government seems to not take any notice of—that women who are on less income and less superannuation under the policies they've put forward would be financially worse off. They would not be supported to stay at home. They would not be supported to earn an income whilst they're dealing with matters to address the violence they have been subject to. Safety shouldn't be conditional on where you work. We on this side recognise and acknowledge those employers already offering the support of paid leave to their employees—employers like Houston's Farm in Tasmania, the first privately-owned business in the state to offer paid leave to employees affected by domestic and family violence. In Tasmania, around 50 cases of domestic violence are reported each week. Houston's Farm recognises that, as an employer of over 200 workers, they too share a responsibility to recognise and respond to these issues. Paid leave is offered to both the victims of domestic violence and those who are accused of perpetrating it, and this is paid leave that Labor supports fully. Perpetrators need to access the same paid leave as victims. This needs to be available to everyone, irrespective of gender identification or who is experiencing domestic or family violence. They need to get help; they need money to do that, and only those on this side of the House will acknowledge that support and provide it, if we are fortunate enough to form government next year. 17:07 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I rise today to speak in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018. This bill is an absolute minimum that should be legislated. But, in reality, as other speakers on this side have said before me, we know that it doesn't go far enough. We know that it doesn't deliver the things that are required for someone escaping domestic violence. It should provide for paid family and domestic violence leave, and I say so because we know that when you're in a domestic violence situation, in a household where you are threatened and where your safety's at risk, there is an urgency about that matter. It's not something that you can plan and do and think out thoroughly before you take any action. Action is required immediately, and, in many cases, that action is escaping that house or that residence as quickly as possible for the safety of you, your children and other family members. Therefore, to do something along those lines—to get up and leave—you require some form of payment. So, if you're not getting paid for this leave, it affects you economically, which then affects the things that you have to put in place immediately, such as finding a new residence. If you're lucky, you might be able to find something in a few days. Second best would be to go and stay with friends, relatives et cetera or in a safe home that is provided somewhere. But the actions that that person takes are urgent. You need to put your family, your kids, in a safe place. You need to provide food for them. You need to provide perhaps a bond for rent. You need to do a whole range of things. Not having any pay for that period puts an extra burden on that person. It could prevent them from leaving a very dangerous place, in turn meaning that their lives are at risk—their wellbeing is at risk. Therefore, even though we support this bill, we do so because it's an absolute minimum that anyone can do. But in reality, as I said, it just doesn't go far enough. It should provide for paid family and domestic violence leave. Extensive Australian research and international research tell us that family and domestic violence can happen to anyone. It occurs in all ages, postcodes and socioeconomic groups. It doesn't matter what religion you are, what race you are, what colour you are or what your socioeconomic standing is. We've seen through surveys and through research that has been done that it happens at all levels. It could happen to anyone, basically. It impacts individuals and families. It impacts the entire community. It impacts the economy as well. It has a ripple effect. While both men and women may be living in a violent situation or relationship, domestic violence is nearly always perpetrated by the male, and the victim is almost always a woman—not in all occurrences, but in the majority. Almost one million women—up to 70 per cent of women—living in a violent relationship are in the workforce. That's a million women who are in the workforce and may at some stage require to have things such as domestic violence leave put in place for their own safety. These women are more likely to have lower incomes and a disrupted work history. They often have to change jobs at short notice because they're moving around. Perhaps you have to leave the suburb you live in or the city, the town or the area that you live in. It means that it's very difficult for them. As I said, these women are more likely to have lower incomes and a disrupted work history. They often have to change jobs at short notice and are very often in casual or part-time work. Sixty per cent of these women have children, whose lives are seriously impacted by living with violence. A violent household has massive effects on children. We know this through research and many other things. Domestic and family violence clearly impacts the workforce. It's a workforce health and safety issue as well, because, if that person is not well at work, it affects safety and it affects your outputs, but it also affects the whole workplace. Prior to coming here, when I had my three years out of this place, I did some work for a great union, the Australian Services Union. A particular case that has stayed in my mind was a woman who had been pulled up by management and had been given a warning about her work. She had left home because of a domestic violence situation, and her partner was calling up to 10 times a day. Someone complained, 'We're taking all these particular calls.' She was called in to management, and she was told to stop talking on the phone or to tell this person to stop calling; 'otherwise, your job is at risk'. That is a situation which I encountered, and this wasn't a very small business; this was one of the major banks. I won't name them and shame them, but it was one of the major banks that had put this woman through this. She contacted her union at the time, and I happened to be the person who was looking into it. We sat down and negotiated. The warning was taken off, but obviously this particular manager had no idea of the workplace arrangements that had been put in place in a big bank like this particular bank, and he wasn't following the protocol of that business. But there's a little situation where the person who had left the domestically violent household was being harassed at work by the partner and, because he was making so many phone calls and turning up to work, she was the one who was given a warning and told that her work wasn't up to scratch. So that is a situation that can happen. We need good education out there to let people know that domestic violence affects everyone that you're involved with: your children, your family, the community and certainly the workplace itself. A person with a job is far more likely to leave a relationship, because they, obviously, have some form of income, but if you cut that income when you take your leave for domestic violence that doesn't assist the situation. That's why it's critical that paid domestic and family violence leave is available as a universal right to all Australian workers. It is very important and is a fundamental right, because this is happening through no fault of your own. I don't think anyone should be forced to choose between their income and their safety, or the safety of their family. As I said, a lot of people will not take action if they know that they will be not receiving any income because you need time to put a whole range of things into place. This bill merely provides five days of no income. There is nothing to help pay the bills that are associated with it, including bonds for new premises if they're renting or money to move furniture out of the house—the things that are required. There is nothing to help them move to a safer home, a safer environment, and nothing to keep the lights on to pay the power companies et cetera. There is nothing to keep a household going. We know that working women need time and financial independence to make themselves, and sometimes their children, safe. As I said, no worker should have to choose between keeping their job and keeping their family safe, so we need at least 10 days paid leave. Research and other studies that have been done show that 10 days is pretty well an absolute minimum. You need those 10 days to provide pay as well, which gives the person a better opportunity—knowing that they are still getting paid—to be able to take action to leave that violent situation and that very dangerous place. The New Zealand government has already guaranteed 10 days paid leave, proving that it's possible at the national level. This government needs to do more to assist women, who are being killed every week. We see the statistic of one woman being killed every single week by an abusive partner. We've heard some horror stories over the last few years. Some dreadful things have happened. These have all been women who were subjected to domestic violence. If some of those women were working and had paid leave, who knows? Their situation could have been very, very different. We don't want to see any more women killed because of domestic violence. As I said, we are supporting this bill, and it is a very small step in the right direction. I would like to back all the surveys and research that has been done, and all those experts who say that you need paid leave. You need paid leave to leave. And you need 10 days pay as a minimum, which is the recommended period. I'm proud that the union that I worked for, the Australian Services Union—and I am a member and have been a member for nearly 30 years—has members working in the frontline DV services as well. We had members who were working in the domestic violence services. I've spoken to some of them over the years. Just recently they told me how long it can take to recover from having been in an abusive relationship. It doesn't happen overnight. It hasn't happen over a week. It takes time to meet with police, to meet with lawyers and to meet with real estate agents. You might need to see a doctor, to see counsellors for yourself or for your children, to talk to schoolteachers or to the principals of your school to let them know what the situation is for those kids' families. Childcare centres and many, many other services are needed to escape violence. Most of these services are available only during business hours, while that person is working, so you need that time off to be able to access these services, to talk to people and to get everything into balance. To escape a violent relationship you need to have time off work to attend these appointments, but you also desperately need the money. That is the part that isn't covered in this bill. You need the money you earn in your job to pay for everything that is required: solicitors; removalists; rental bonds; the first month's rent, up-front in most cases; gas and electricity connections; a phone line; counselling; doctors' appointments; new furniture; appliances; and sometimes a new school. And the list goes on and on. There are travel expenses to get to all these appointments as well if you're not driving, and, if you are driving, there is petrol and parking. All these things add up. If there is no money to pay for all these things, that person may think they cannot leave that situation they're in—and we're putting them at risk. We don't want any of those people to be one of those statistics that I just read out earlier—one woman per week on average. The ASU, and this side of the chamber, has been campaigning for decades for paid domestic and family violence leave—one workplace and one enterprise agreement at a time. I was part of that, and it was interesting to see that a lot of the workplaces were taking it up. I agree with the ASU—which has done the research and many other things—that this entitlement shouldn't just be accessible to workers lucky enough to be employed in a well unionised workplace, with enterprise agreements, where they know that they have the support of their workplace, of the agreement that is in place and of their union; it should be a universal entitlement for all workers. I take my hat off to the people who are constantly advocating in this important space—in particular, the South Australian state secretary of the Australian Services Union, Abbie Spencer, who has been championing this in South Australia. Some of our councils in South Australia have taken this on board, and many of them have signed up to be a White Ribbon workplace as well. There is a whole set of criteria they have to go through. Many of our workplaces in South Australia have signed up so that they can show that they are doing something for domestic violence. As I said from the start, we are supporting this bill. It is a minimum step that we can take. But if you really want to make it work, if you really want to assist women who are in the situation that they have to flee to protect their safety and the safety of their children, we need 10 days paid leave so they can afford to pay for the things that are required. Certainly, if they're not getting paid when they are working, we don't want them to stay in a very dangerous situation. 17:22 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I speak in support of the amendment that has been moved by the member for Gorton, the shadow minister. This is a very, very serious issue. By this time today, and sadly each and every day, police across Australia will have already dealt with hundreds of domestic violence matters. That's hundreds of victims each Monday, week in, week out, of the uncivil war of family violence that continues across our nation. But it can't simply be left to police and our first responders to intervene and help pick up the pieces of broken lives on a Monday or any other day across our nation. Here in this place we have a responsibility to do all that we can to help those out there—not only to prevent situations of domestic violence but also to provide comfort, support and services for those that are victims to help get their lives back on track and, importantly, to ensure that their kids are safe. It's a responsibility, of course, to the victims and their families, along with those hardworking members of our police forces. On 23 November, a couple of weeks ago, I was walking alongside a number of members of the New South Wales Police Force's Eastern Beaches Local Area Command and Botany Bay Local Area Command on the White Ribbon Walk to stop domestic violence against women. The walk takes place every year—from the top of the hill at Randwick all the way down to Coogee Beach. That brief walk, which took us about 15 minutes, really put into perspective the difficulties and the challenges that we have in combating domestic violence not only in Australia but also, unfortunately, in other countries where the situation is much worse. For the police, so much of their time is spent on the front lines. Yet, for the victims of domestic violence, all of their time, all of their life, is consumed with simply surviving and trying to get through the day when they know they are going to be targeted by someone who has been violent against them or will be violent against them. So what can we do with our time in this place as legislators to make sure that we're supporting those people? We can take the time to do all that we can to help women and their children live another Monday and more. It's shameful that so many from the other side just can't be bothered to speak about this issue. If you look at the speaking lists that have been circulated in the parliament over the last two weeks, not just this week, unfortunately there are a sparse number of MPs from the government side that have been willing to speak on this issue, about something that really is a national tragedy. Family and domestic violence leave is crucial for women to be able to leave abusive relationships with their lives. One woman a week is murdered by a cowardly Australian male, and we know that the most dangerous time for a woman is when she is leaving a violent relationship. So many of the cases of violence against women in this country and in others occur during that vulnerable time when a woman has decided to leave a relationship and conveys that to her partner or her ex-partner. At Coogee this year, we heard the harrowing story of a woman in that exact situation, who spoke very bravely about her circumstances and her decision to leave her partner. This woman was very well educated. She was a doctor. She decided to leave that relationship. Unfortunately, in the process of doing that, she was violently assaulted by her partner, and he threw petrol on her and tried to set her alight. Thankfully, she was able to survive. However, it perfectly highlighted that the most vulnerable time for a woman in a relationship is when she makes the decision to leave an abusive relationship. In circumstances where women have to do that, there are many, many things that turn their lives upside down. They need to find new accommodation and security. They often need to get an apprehended violence order through the police force, to seek treatment for injuries and perhaps to attend court appearances associated with the horrible acts that have been perpetrated against them. It's all consuming, and it's costly. It costs women in these situations a large amount of money. The costs of relocation, medical and counselling bills, and increased transportation costs due to moving or losing access to a car, as well as lost earnings, all add up. If women need to take time off work to do these vital things to help keep themselves safe and, importantly, keep their kids safe, women in that situation should not have to worry about the tenure of their position with their employment. They shouldn't have to worry about losing pay to do so. A woman in that situation should be able to count on continuing to receive a pay cheque and being able to go back to work. That is a fundamental human right that we as legislators should be able to provide to women in that terrible and shocking situation when they are at their most vulnerable. Unfortunately, to date this parliament has not been able to do so, and this government has ignored the pleas of victims, victims groups, a number of other state and territory jurisdictions, employers who are already providing this type of leave, and a number of welfare organisations and legal bodies that say this is the right thing to do and a sensible reform to make. Yet this hopelessly out-of-touch government continues to stonewall and not provide that important support for victims of domestic violence. It is one of the most shameful aspects of this government at the moment, and let's face it: there are many. Victims of family and domestic violence need paid leave. Last year Labor demonstrated that we are listening to those victims and their family and friends when we announced that, if elected, a Shorten Labor government will introduce 10 days of paid domestic violence leave into the National Employment Standards. We're disappointed that this government has refused to join us in this important commitment. We've listened to the victims. We've sat down with them and heard what they've had to say about this issue, but the government continues to ignore their pleas and continues to find excuses not to provide that legislative protection in our National Employment Standards. We've heard from frontline workers, from businesses, from unions and from organisations that deal with domestic violence victims on a daily basis. Their clear message is that people who have experienced domestic violence need more support in the workplace. This is not a matter that's confined to the home. We don't say anymore: 'Listen, that's something you have to deal with at home. Don't bring that to work.' We all know that when you are a victim of such horrifying acts as these, you can't separate them from your workplace. For some women, their workplace is actually a support mechanism. Their work colleagues and sometimes their employer may be the most important support that they have in these difficult situations. Other jurisdictions have introduced paid domestic violence leave. Labor believes that Australia's federal workplace system should also provide this important workplace entitlement. For example, in July this year the New Zealand government legislated family and domestic violence leave, guaranteeing 10 days paid leave for all workers who are experiencing violence and need to escape. Queensland, Western Australia and the ACT all offer 10 days paid domestic violence leave to public sector employees, while South Australia offers 15 days and Victoria offers 20 days. Many employers already provide, through enterprise agreements, paid family and domestic violence leave to their workforces. The Male Champions of Change's 2015 Playing our part report states that: … 10 days paid leave appears to be a developing norm. Well, not if you're a member of this government. If you're a member of this government, you've still got your head in the sand when it comes to listening to victims of domestic violence. You are so out of touch that you can't hear the pleas of the victims who are saying: 'This should be a human right. If someone is a victim of domestic violence, they deserve the time off to ensure that they can get their family and, importantly, their kids safe and can get their lives back on track. Employers should be in a position to support that.' Many employers, as I said, already provide these services through enterprise agreements. More than 1,000 enterprise agreements approved under the Fair Work Act between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2017 provided for 10 days or more paid domestic and family violence leave. The companies include some of Australia's largest: Carlton & United Breweries, Telstra, the National Australia Bank, Virgin Australia, IKEA and Qantas. These employers and many others have paved the way and helped reduce the stigma that often accompanies domestic violence. So too have Australia's unions. Over many years they've campaigned for domestic and family violence leave and negotiated that important coverage in enterprise agreements. It's now time that the Commonwealth government—this parliament—did the same thing. All of these organisations, victims, their families, victims' groups, welfare organisations, state and territory governments, employers and the trade union movement have been saying for well over five years now: 'This is a reform that is long overdue. It's a basic human right that should be provided in our workplace relations system to victims of domestic violence.' Labor knows that many small businesses where employees and employers have a close working relationship already support their staff to take paid leave to deal with the consequences of domestic violence. While we do not anticipate that there will be significant uptake of all 10 days leave, it's crucial that it be available for those women who need it and that it be available at that crucial time when they are trying to leave those violent relationships and ensure that their families—in particular their kids—are safe. Research by the Australia Institute in 2016 estimated that domestic violence leave wage payouts would be equivalent to less than one-fifteenth of one per cent, so we are not talking about a cost burden here for employers. The study also found that the costs to employers associated with those payouts are likely to largely or completely be offset by the benefits to employers associated with the provision of paid domestic violence leave, including reduced turnover and improved productivity. We all know it's a simple formula: an employee who gets the support that they need in the workplace is a happier employee in the workplace and is going to be more productive. So it's really disappointing that it has taken this long for the government this long to move from their absolute opposition to family and domestic violence to their belated support for unpaid leave. While this bill is a step in the right direction, it simply doesn't go far enough. Other jurisdictions have gone down the track of paid domestic violence leave. It's time that the Commonwealth parliament woke up and listened to those victims who have had the most horrible and horrific acts perpetrated upon them; it's time that we as a Commonwealth parliament listened to those victims; it's time that we supported 10 days paid domestic violence leave; and it's time that this government supported Labor's approach and Labor's policy for this Commonwealth parliament to provide that leave through the National Employment Standards. It should provide for paid domestic and family violence leave. 17:37 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Violence and abuse against women exist in many forms. They can be physical. They can be emotional. They can be financial. Now, in the information age, they can also come in new forms like the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. We've heard these statistics endlessly. On average, one woman is killed every week by a current or former partner; one in three women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by someone known to them; one in five women over the age of 18 have been stalked in their lifetime; and domestic violence is the principal cause of homelessness for women and their children. This compares to one in 16 men. Violence against women is a national tragedy. It's a national disgrace. It is a tragedy, but it's also a disgrace. It is a national crisis and it is a national shame. Do you want to know what else is a national shame? The dismissive response that women who are victims of violence or harassment receive from those who are in a position to help. Last week I stood here in this very spot, and I was sharing experiences of Canberrans in relation to housing stress and homelessness. Straight after my speech, a woman from Victoria called my office to thank me for speaking out and explained why she identified so closely with that speech. The woman receives the disability support pension and she lives in a rental property. The property has no heating. Fancy being able to rent a property with no heating! I remember that one of the first places I rented in Canberra in the early 1990s had no heating, but I would have thought that 30 years later things would be a bit better. So this property has no heating, and that was the first point my caller identified with. The second was the dismissive attitude of real estate agents. My caller shared her story. She had been the victim of an attempted rape in the previous fortnight and, since then, had been trying to break her lease so she could move somewhere where she could feel safe. The response from her property managers—this is real cute!—was, 'It will cost her $2,000 because of the length of time it will take to find someone to take on the lease.' So, here she is, this woman in the Latrobe Valley in an unheated home, in 2018—I won't say anything to identify her. As someone who spent their very early years in the Latrobe Valley, where I went to kindergarten and to primary school, and where my little sister was born in the hospital at Yallourn, I know that it can get pretty cool and pretty bleak in winter. The fact that this woman is living in an unheated home is a disgrace to the landlord. The property managers then asked her to pay $2,000 to break the lease, which she wanted to do because she had been a victim of a rape attempt and she was trying to find somewhere safe. That is a disgrace. The figures we have on this scourge of domestic and family violence in this nation are an absolute shame and disgrace. It is something we should all hang our heads in shame over. But here we have this woman who is going through really tough times, and the property manager is saying, 'That'll be $2,000.' She explained the situation to the property manager—she shared the intimate details of something so very personal and traumatising that happened to her—and there was no empathy, no understanding and no appreciation of what she was going through. This is a woman who is on the DSP and who has been the victim of a crime, and who is trying to do what she can to feel safe. Where is she going to find $2,000? That's one story. Over the course of this debate, we have heard countless stories of women fleeing violent situations; in many ways, they are degraded and made to feel lesser in the process of escaping violence, or made to feel even more vulnerable than they were when they were experiencing violent situations. This is just one of the stories outlining the experience of Australian women today going through violence in their homes. The reason I share it with you is to show just how hard it is for women to escape, or to do something to deal with the impact of violence, especially if they are already at a financial disadvantage. So many women are at a structural financial disadvantage as a result of pay inequity. Pay inequity drives the huge gap in women's super and it is one of the reasons that older single women are one of the fastest-growing groups of people falling into homelessness. I have spoken extensively about that and I will continue to speak about this issue until I finish in this place. The inherent structural financial disadvantage that most women face is the reason that I'm adding my voice to the discussion on this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018. It's a bill that is meant to provide a safety net for those in the workforce who experience family violence. The bill implements a decision made by the Fair Work Commission in March to include a clause in all modern awards to provide for five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. The bill we're talking about today will amend the National Employment Standards to ensure the entitlement will apply in full to all employees—full-time, part-time and casual workers. According to studies by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, women are at a greater risk of family violence than men. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that around two out of three of all women who experience domestic violence are in the workforce. Given this, it only makes sense that any response to domestic violence includes an appropriate workplace response. Yet Australian women effectively work the first two months of every year for free, compared to their male colleagues. And when they face the most traumatic experiences in their lives, under this bill they are expected to undertake life-changing decisions and make arrangements for their safety, all while being unpaid. The structural economic disadvantage for women continues. It is built in. It continues and continues and continues. I'm having conversations and I'm seeing the reality, as are so many people in this place. We are seeing the reality of this disadvantage—this inequity—continuing through a lifetime. We see it when women come to us who are in the private rental market, trying to make ends meet on the pension. They are facing a very, very bleak retirement future. While this bill is a nod in the right direction, it simply does not go far enough. What those in our communities disproportionately affected by family violence really need is paid family and domestic violence leave. The Australian Law Reform Commission noted in its 2011 final report: There are strong arguments in favour of the need for paid family violence leave, or a combination of paid and unpaid leave, to avoid provision of a 'hollow' entitlement, risk further disadvantaging victims of family violence, or to fail to achieve the objects underlying its introduction. The ACTU argued: Until 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave is a universal … employment standard, vulnerable employees will still be forced to make an unacceptable choice between their safety and their pay check. How invidious is that? Here we are putting these women in the position where they actually have to make a decision between their safety—not only their personal safety but the safety of their children—and their pay cheque. Paid domestic violence leave provisions are not new. The Philippines introduced legislation providing up to 10 days paid domestic violence leave in 2004. These arrangements are appearing in Australian workplace agreements in both the private and the public sectors. My colleague the member for Kingsford Smith outlined in his speech not just a range of states and territories across Australia that have introduced similar legislation but also organisations in the private sector and the public sector, including some of our very large companies. He also outlined the range of countries that have introduced this kind of legislation. The ACT might be small, but it's leading the way when it comes to raising awareness of domestic and family violence and engaging the community in a response. The most recent ACT Policing crime statistics showed that there were 2,150 incidents of family violence reported from January to October 2018, and in the same period there were 603 family violence assaults. These statistics were somewhat reduced from the same period the year before, which had 2,414 family violence incidents and 773 family violence assaults. The ACT has had 20 days paid family and domestic violence leave in workplace arrangements for the public sector since 2013, and it has pushed hard at COAG for paid leave to be included as a national employment standard. The ACT government has implemented a $30 annual levy, paid by each ACT ratepayer, which is used to help fund future prevention and early intervention programs and to assist with demand for crisis housing, health and legal support. The reduction in ACT Policing crime statistics shows that these strategies are having some effect. In the ACT, there are avenues of support for low-income victims of domestic violence. There are fewer options available for women in the middle-income bracket. These domestic violence survivors make up a missing middle here in Canberra. In the ACT, we have the Assistance Beyond Crisis loans scheme, which was established in 2017 with the help of the Snow Foundation, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Since then, 27 women and 80 children have received financial help under the scheme. Women have been able to secure new homes and furnish them, afford medical bills, pay legal fees and keep their kids in the schools they've been in since kindergarten, which is really important. These are things we might take for granted, but they're things which help maintain a sense of normalcy and stability. These interest-free loans have helped survivors build new lives. There's a misconception about domestic violence survivors that, if you're earning a certain amount of money, you've got your life together. But just because some women are on generally high incomes doesn't mean they can afford the same things that they did when they were with a partner. Nine times out of 10, their financial circumstances are far more complex than this, and this complexity is yet another reason why women need paid family and domestic violence leave. A number of submissions from private sector organisations to the Senate committee's inquiry into this bill noted that the time needed by affected employees to sufficiently organise alternative arrangements—living arrangements, financial arrangements and legal arrangements—was between five and 11 days. So 10 days of leave absolutely makes sense. We know that this government has moved way too slowly. The minister first committed to unpaid leave at the end of March, yet it has taken until September for the government to introduce the bill. Since coming into government, the coalition have tried five times to slash paid parental leave. They've opposed increases to the minimum wage that disproportionately benefit women. They've supported cuts to penalty rates. They've introduced changes to child care, leaving one in four families worse off and meaning that some women working four days a week will actually lose money if they increase their workforce participation. They cut $35 million from community legal centres that provide crucial legal services to family violence victims. They abolished the annual women's budget statement to hide the harmful impacts their policies have on women. Contrast that with Labor. We've already committed to a $400 million boost to women's superannuation balances for a more secure financial future, which includes paying superannuation on Commonwealth paid parental leave. We have committed to taking action to close the gender pay gap, including greater transparency and accountability for business and government. We have committed to investing $88 million over two years in emergency housing and, most recently, to investing $18 million over three years to ensure that the Keeping Women Safe in Their Home program is able to continue after the government cut funding for this program. This is an amazing program. It provides expert safety advice and upgrades to women to keep them in their home. Why should women and children have to leave the family home as a result of a violent partner forcing them out? Why should they leave the comfort and safety of their own home, the whole school environment and the whole community environment because someone is instilling fear of violence in them? Why should they be the ones who leave? That's why this program is so fantastic in trying to keep those women and their children in their own homes. We're coming up to Christmas, and this is a particularly bad time for family and domestic violence. So I encourage all Australians, all Canberrans, to please reach out to your support services and ask them what they need. I know that, here in Canberra, women are often having to flee family violence around the Christmas period and particularly on Christmas Day. They need bags full of goodies—phone cards, toys and games. They're going to be in a bleak hotel room, on their own, with their children on Christmas Day. Please, Australia, please, Canberra, reach out and provide every support you can to make Christmas Day for these women and their children that much better. 17:52 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham I want to indicate, as my colleagues have done on this side of the House, that it's my intention to support the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018. However, I am critical of the bill, in that the bill does not go far enough in its provision of five days of unpaid family and domestic violence leave. I am very conscious, as I speak on this bill in the roughly 15 minutes allocated to me to do so, that, across the country, in homes in each and every one of our electorates, there is no geographical barrier to the experience of family and domestic violence. It occurs in households, regardless of income, cultural or ethnic background or religion. This scourge in our society is affecting women and children right now, as I'm on my feet speaking. There must be efforts made by this government, by this parliament and by state and federal authorities to do all that we can to address what is a crisis in our community. The direct and immediate impact on people who are facing violence, whether it's physical, sexual or emotional violence, is profound. These people struggle to simply manage and get by and to protect each other, particularly mothers who are looking to protect their children. The day-to-day reality is terrifying for them. We know from many, many long-term studies the terrible impact it has not only on the lives of those who are in the middle of such a crisis but also on their emotional and physical wellbeing well into the years beyond escaping from that home. It impacts on our communities, our society and our economy are real, serious and require attention by all governments. It is, sadly, the reality, as we know from Our Watch, that the statistics are terrifying. One woman a week is murdered in this country as a result of family and domestic violence. Each day, like many of my colleagues, as I open my Facebook feed I see groups that follow and report on this. Every week we're seeing another death of a woman through family and domestic violence and too often also children. One in three women have experienced physical violence by the age of 15—one in three! One in five have experienced sexual violence. One in six have experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or former partner. One in four have experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner. We have to ask, as a society, what it is that is contributing to this situation, and we have to deal seriously with the underlying structural issues around the way women are viewed and treated in our society to ensure that we are raising young people and children—boys and girls as well—to have respect for each other, and to understand that each and every single person has the human right to dignity, to safety and to see their lives fulfilled, in not just our society but all societies. It should be a universal thing across the world. Until we get to addressing those very fundamental issues we will continue to face this crisis. It is important that we do have policies and procedures in place, things like the bill before us, to assist and protect people in the immediacy of these circumstances. I will put out a call, as my colleague the member for Canberra just did, as we go into the Christmas season that each and every day we need to be thinking about how we build respect for each other. If we respect each other and respect our right to safety, and our right to be able to fully participate in our society, to go out into our communities and to reach our potential, then we start to challenge the views that obviously feed some people's attitude that they have a right to impinge physically, sexually or emotionally on the wellbeing of another human being. When that is a person you are supposed to love, who you are supposed to be supporting, then you really need to ask: what is it that is driving that level of disrespect in our society? I think we should all be speaking about that constantly. I endorse many of my colleagues across both sides of the chamber who challenge that disrespect. Importantly, in terms of this bill, we know that the ABS tells us that two out of every three women who experience domestic violence are in the workforce, so one of the things that we have to address is how the workplace responds to women who are experiencing family and domestic violence. In 2016 KPMG did an exercise estimating the cost of violence against women and their children on production and on the business sector. Whilst I don't argue that economic costs are the only factor, I think it is important to recognise that their study found that $1.9 billion was the cost of family and domestic violence in 2015-16. So it is important. There will be many campaigns prosecuted, in particular by the trade union movement. I acknowledge many of the fabulous people who have been involved in that campaign. We need to address how we support women in the workplace when they're dealing with these matters. This bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill, follows a decision that was made by the Fair Work Commission in March this year to insert a clause into modern awards that would provide five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. That decision of the Fair Work Commission came into effect from 1 August this year, and that would cover more than two million Australians who are award-reliant employees, giving them that entitlement. The bill before us amends the National Employment Standards to provide all employees with an entitlement to this five days of unpaid leave if they are experiencing family and domestic violence. The bill before us pretty closely reflects the model clause—that is, it's a five-day unpaid entitlement. It applies to all employees—importantly, including casuals. I think that is very important. It's available in full at the commencement of each 12-month period rather than occurring progressively. It will not accumulate from year to year, but it will be available in full to part-time and casual employees, so this is not pro rata as many entitlements are, and I think that is very important. It is a step in the right direction. Labor has a policy and a commitment that we should have 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave. I think that is the appropriate standard. That's why I'm a little critical of the bill before us. I don't think it goes far enough, but I do acknowledge it is a step in the right direction. One of the reasons this is so important is that when a woman makes a decision to leave a violent relationship, often with children who have to be taken as well, there are a whole range of implications of that decision that have to be dealt with. In particular, there are things like medical appointments, legal appointments and, as the member for Canberra said, the whole thing about arranging accommodation. Often those types of appointments can only be made during working hours, so it is important for women, in that really difficult and often, sadly, most dangerous time when they decide to leave, that they have the entitlement to leave that will enable them to do those sorts of appointments. In the time that is left to me, I just want to talk about some of the local organisations in my own area—and I'm sure they're reflected in constituencies across the country—who work in this space and my great respect and admiration for the work that they do. The Illawarra Committee Against Domestic Violence has produced a very important document that goes through the resources and support available. The Illawarra Women's Health Centre works in this space. In particular, I want to acknowledge the Reclaim the Night Illawarra team, which each year raises awareness in our community of the scourge of family and domestic violence and the resources that are available. Whenever I can, I make sure that I go along and support them on those occasions. About two years ago, they collected a petition with over 12,000 signatures calling for action on family and domestic violence, which I was pleased to table in this parliament. The organisers this year—Janine McEvoy from Relationships Australia and Lynelle Samways from the Wollongong Women's Information Service—again rallied the local community on this very important issue. It is, I think, a space that is not easy to work in, and we certainly should pay respect to the very many people, both workers and volunteers, in organisations in our communities who are working in this space. I just want to—with your indulgence, Deputy Speaker—identify those working locally. They are: White Ribbon Australia; the Illawarra Committee against Domestic Violence; the Illawarra Women's Health Centre; the Wollongong Women's Information Service; Supported Accommodation and Homelessness Services Shoalhaven Illawarra; the Wollongong Homeless Hub; the Housing Trust; Southern Youth and Family Services; headspace Wollongong; Wollongong Youth Services; Violence Abuse and Neglect Services; the Older Women's Network; Community Movers; the Illawarra Legal Centre; the Illawarra Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service; the South Coast Children's Family Centre; CareSouth's Brighter Futures; Housing New South Wales; the local police—with whom I meet regularly to get updates on all the local issues they face, and often domestic violence is right up there; our local hospitals—who, sadly, are often the first places to see people suffering in these situations; and local charities, who are out there day in, day out—CatholicCare, Baptist Care, Anglicare, St Vincent de Paul, The Salvation Army, Barnardos—providing emergency relief and other services. Part of the reason I wanted to pay respect to all of those organisations and the work that they do is that I think that, in listing them, we can see the extent of the challenge in our communities. Some of the services provided are counselling services, medical services, housing support, and food and emergency relief services. They are across youth services, women services, health services and, as I said, police. We can see that family and domestic violence has an extensive impact on our community. I was very pleased last week that the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, along with our shadow minister for preventing family violence, announced that Labor would re-fund—as in, fund a program that the government had not committed to funding—the Keeping Women Safe in their Home program, which provides funding so that, instead of having to flee their homes, women and children are able to stay in their homes. It does things like assessments and safety planning on the home, home safety upgrades, new locks, alarms, cameras and so forth, and supports women in enforcing apprehended violence orders. This was an important initiative, and I'm very pleased that Labor has announced that we will continue the funding for that program. Finally, I say that this bill is a step in the right direction. It is good to provide this entitlement to workers—permanent, casual and part-time—to enable women to have that support when they are fleeing family and domestic violence. But I would hope that we very soon see a government in this place that will extend that to 10 days family and domestic violence leave, and make that paid. 18:07 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I also rise to add my voice to the debate on this bill, Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018. Following on from the member for Cunningham, I acknowledge her strong commitment and voice for many people on this. The long list of speakers clearly shows that members of this House and, indeed, the Australian public are committed to ending the scourge that is family and domestic violence. Whilst in recent times this issue has, rightly, seen more coverage in the news and in the community, in many circles it is, sadly, still a taboo topic that is simply swept under the carpet and ignored. A bruised eye from an argument over dinner, broken dishes from a disagreement about paying the bills, or even just the mental pain from repeated threats, bullying and intimidation—all of these acts are considered to be family or domestic violence and can be overlooked or ignored. But, together as a parliament and as a nation, we must say: 'no more'. My colleagues speaking before me have read out the shameful statistics when it comes to domestic violence, particularly against women. The numbers are as large as they are shocking. The headline figure—that, on average, one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner—tells us this is truly a national crisis. Coupled with statistics like the fact that since the age of 15 one in four women have experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner, we can see that the problem runs deeper and deeper. These are our sisters, our mothers, our partners, our wives, our aunts and even, in my case, a grandmother. Keep in mind that these numbers are only those women who have the courage and who are brave enough to speak up, and we must encourage more women to do so. We also know that since the age of 15 7.8 per cent of Australian men have experienced violence by a partner. All forms of violence are unacceptable, which is why it is paramount that this parliament leads the way to ensure that those suffering or escaping from family and domestic violence are given the support they need. Today we go some way towards doing just that. The bill we are debating today, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018, follows the decision of the Fair Work Commission in March this year to insert into modern awards a clause providing for five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. This decision came into effect from 1 August this year, meaning that more than two million award-reliant employees are now entitled to five days unpaid domestic violence leave. This new legislation will apply to all employees, including casuals; will be available in full at the commencement of each 12-month period rather than accruing progressively during a year of service; will not accumulate from year to year; and will be available in full to part-time and casual employees. This is certainly a step in the right direction but, I'm afraid to say, comes up short against what is truly needed for victims of domestic violence to feel safe and empowered and to have the time they need to get their life on track. Five days of unpaid leave, whilst a good start, leaves a hole in the family budget and leaves those fleeing from domestic violence a small window to find safety and shelter. Tonight, I say we must do more. That's why the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, has announced that a new Shorten Labor government, if privileged to be elected, would invest $18 million over three years to 2021-22 to ensure that Keeping Women Safe In Their Home continues after the government has confirmed it was cutting funding for the program. This program provides practical help for women and children in their homes, allowing them to live safely away from perpetrators through expert safety assessments and safety planning; home safety upgrades and devices such as new locks, alarms, cameras and safety phones; screening for bugs to ensure privacy; and supporting women in enforcing apprehended violence orders. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their home. Women should not have to choose between their home and their safety, and neither should their children, yet this is not the case for many women who have left violent or abusive relationships. I was proud to be here on White Ribbon Day last year when the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, announced that a new Labor government would also legislate for 10 days of family violence leave in the National Employment Standards. To this day, my Labor colleagues and I stand by this policy, because it is the right thing to do and because it is what is necessary and it is what is required to support the victims. Almost 40 per cent of women continued to experience violence from their partner while temporarily separated. It's facts like this that show why five days is just too short. We know the most dangerous time for a woman is when she is leaving a violent relationship. She will often need to find new accommodation and security, get an AVO from police, seek treatment for injuries or perhaps attend court appearances. Earlier this year, this bill was referred to the Senate Employment and Education Legislation Committee, which handed down its report just over a month ago. This allowed the community, organisations and victims of domestic violence to have their say on the merits and also the shortcomings of this legislation. In their submission to the inquiry, the Acting Federal Secretary of the Australian Nursing & Midwifery Federation, Lori-Anne Sharp, said: The introduction of Family and Domestic Violence Leave to the entitlements enshrined in the National Employment Standards is an appropriate and welcome safety net to benefit all working Australians. She also said: The ANMF's membership of nurses, midwives and carers is approximately 90% female. As family and domestic violence predominantly affects women, this means a significant proportion of the ANMF's membership will at some time in their working lives, be affected by family and domestic violence. However, she said: The ANMF considers the provision of 5 days unpaid leave to be a starting point only. The ANMF calls for family and domestic violence leave to be paid leave and for the cap of five days to be removed. Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia went one step further and said: At a workplace level, the introduction of FDV leave may challenge attitudes and workplace cultures that support or condone violence against women. It may assist individual staff and managers to recognise and respond to signs that an employee might be experiencing violence at home. Perhaps the most notable submission, from my perspective, came from the Queensland government who, through the hard work of the Palaszczuk Labor government, has led the way on reforms in this country to give victims of family and domestic violence the support they need. Queensland was the first state to put an entitlement to paid domestic and family violence leave into law as part of the raft of significant new protections for workers under the state's Industrial Relations Act 2016. In doing so, the Queensland government delivered on the recommendations of the landmark Not now, not ever report from Dame Quentin Bryce for a 10-day paid domestic and family violence leave entitlement. I pay tribute and credit to the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. Grace Grace, who said when introducing that legislation: … just as our workplace laws support workers with leave entitlements in circumstances when they are sick or when their family is sick or when they lose a loved one, those workers experiencing domestic and family violence need and deserve the same type of support to help them in those most desperate of times. The entitlement in the IR Act, however, only extends to workers in the Queensland industrial relations jurisdiction. To ensure this same support is available to all workers in Queensland and across the country, the Queensland government has consistently called for the provision of a legislative entitlement to paid domestic and family violence leave in the National Employment Standards. Their submission particularly noted that paid leave of up to 10 days is necessary to afford genuine and practical workplace support to employees experiencing domestic and family violence. Some industry and employer groups will criticise Labor's policy as undermining the decision of the independent umpire. They may claim that 10 days of paid family and domestic violence is leave is an unacceptable burden on employers, particularly small business, but research shows this is just not the case. In their submission to the Senate inquiry, the Law Council of Australia stated: There are currently over 1,200 enterprise agreements which contain some form of domestic and family violence leave … Despite fears expressed by some groups that including such leave would cause financial hardship to employers through high rates of usage, a 2015 study of 102 employers who offered domestic leave found that the average paid leave taken in the past 12 months was only 43 hours and the average unpaid leave taken … was 19 hours … The workplaces that participated in the study did not report that providing family and domestic leave was an unaffordable burden for their organisation. Flagship companies that are already leading the way with 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave include Carlton & United Breweries, Telstra, NAB, Virgin Australia, IKEA and Qantas. These employers and many others have paved the way and helped reduce the stigma that often accompanies domestic violence. So too have Australia's unions, campaigning for paid domestic and family violence leave over many years and negotiating domestic leave coverage in Australian workplaces. Only a few days ago, ALDI Australia became the latest business to unveil an expanded domestic violence leave policy amid a broader effort for employers to better support workers with policies which go above and beyond the law. ALDI will now provide its 12,000 full-time employees with access to 10 days of paid domestic violence leave and will also include an additional $250 offered for incidental expenses workers may incur as a result of family and domestic violence. It's clear the business community is up for this, so I ask: why isn't the government? There is perhaps no greater example through than what our communities are doing on the ground each and every day. This includes, in my own local community, the Inala Says kNOw program, which I'm immensely proud to work with. The program launched last year with a symposium at Glenala State High School, under the leadership of their principal, Anne Lawson. It was attended by hundreds of students and community leaders alongside dozens of stallholders, including the Brisbane Domestic Violence Service, Churches of Christ, Child and Youth Mental Health Services, and the Domestic Violence Action Centre. Glenala State High School captains unveiled the Inala Says kNOw murals, consisting of 264 individual painted tiles of personal messages, quotes and designs that the students had painted during lunchtime. And Inala Says kNOw stickers designed by Glenala State High School student Jennifer Ngo have now been placed on over 70 local business shopfronts to show that the conversation about domestic and family violence has continued outside of the symposium and that the community is taking a collective stance against it. All of this would seem to tell us that we are heading in the right direction. But sadly it may seem not so. If you look at the ABS release of findings from the 2016 personal safety survey—it was the first consolidated ABS data released on violence against women since the 2012 census—it recorded a 13 per cent increase in partner violence against women. Last year alone, 211,700 Australian women experienced violence at the hands of a current or former partner. Let me put such a large number in numbers which are perhaps more manageable. If you divide that number by the number of days in the year, it means that, from when we woke up this morning to tomorrow morning when we wake up, over 570 assaults and attacks will be recorded—overnight. So it starts with us here and now in this parliament today that we representatives of the people provide the support and backing that the victims need and deserve. The ABS estimates that around two out of every three women who experience domestic violence are in the workplace. There can be no doubt that a comprehensive response to domestic involves a workplace response. This is what we ask the government to do today. Whilst Labor will support this bill, it cannot end here. Labor has listened to victims, frontline workers, businesses, unions and organisations that deal with domestic violence. Their clear message is that people who have experienced domestic violence need more support in the workplace, which is why we call on the government to go one step further and legislate for 10 days of paid domestic and family violence leave. Only when we give our full and unconditional support to victims will we see them properly supported. I have spoken to many service providers in my own community over many years and looked into the faces of people, particularly women, who have fled situations and who have told me their harrowing stories. They are not easy conversations to have, but they are important conversations to have. Today I pledge my support to do everything I can to ensure that those people fleeing family and domestic violence have the support, recognition and leave that they deserve. 18:21 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I'm really pleased to rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018. I obviously support this bill. This is a great step forward for those people all around the country and in my electorate of Petrie who suffer domestic violence. I am sure that all of us members of parliament and the general community have heard domestic violence situations in our own communities. Six or seven years ago when I was living at Woody Point in my electorate I heard a scream from the neighbour next door. When you hear a scream you think, 'What am I going to do?' Then you hear the fight afterwards. On that occasion I called the police and they came immediately. It was a very quick response. It is a difficult situation. People often don't know what to do. They're a little bit scared. Do they intervene? Do they call the police? Do they go and knock on the door? Domestic violence is a real issue. I think the Australian community, rightly, are addressing it and are becoming more aware of it. Not so long ago just up the road from my electorate office in Clontarf I came across a woman who was seven months pregnant. She was sitting out the front of a coffee shop looking a bit lonely. I approached her and introduced myself, 'I'm the federal MP for the area, Luke Howarth.' I got talking to her and she said, 'My partner has just hit me.' It was difficult because she was seven months pregnant with his child and she was sitting there alone, a bit frightened and not wanting to go home that night. It was clear to me that it wasn't easy or she wasn't able to just leave the situation. She obviously loved her partner—they were about to have a family together—yet this person had been hitting her. I was able to put her in contact with support services like Encircle, which is in my electorate at Redcliffe and in the neighbouring electorate of Dickson at Strathpine, to provide her with some support. It's a very difficult situation. Currently the Australian federal coalition government have a zero tolerance for violence against women and children—zero. We are committing well in excess of $300 million to address safety. In the most recent federal budget we committed an additional $54 million for women's safety initiatives, including $11.5 million for 1800RESPECT, $6.7 million for DV-alert, $14.2 million for the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to improve cybersafety for women and $22 million to combat elder abuse. Of course in my own electorate as well we're supporting services like Encircle Redcliffe, the Deception Bay Neighbourhood Centre and many other community organisations that do great work in this space. So providing five days family and domestic violence leave for all employees covered by the Fair Work Act is a step in the right direction. How does this bill differ? At the moment, of course, employees have 10 days entitlement. On top of their four weeks annual leave, they have 10 days entitlement for sick leave and family leave. If a woman is actually hit and physically hurt, of course, they can take that sick leave, but this bill says that the Fair Work Commission has considered the model clause represented a fair and relevant minimum safety net entitlement and should be reflected in the National Employment Standards. We agree with that and, under the bill, employees will be able to access the leave to undertake a range of activities during working hours that might not be provided during standard sick leave or family leave. These items would include participating in the court processes, for example, if they have to go to court; attending property inspections if they're looking for a new place to live; or attending appointments at financial institutions to get support. They might not have been physically hurt at the time but need some extra time off that might not normally be covered by personal sick leave and so forth. It is crucial that employees have the opportunity to attend to these activities without concern for their job security, and this bill ensures this, which is why I'm very pleased to support it. Of course, most businesses would often provide that opportunity for their employees, but legislating this as a workplace entitlement will actually help those people who do suffer DV. I want to say as well that it's been a little bit disappointing listening to some of those Labor members opposite that I think have been unfair and partisan in their criticism of coalition MPs. They rise and say, 'Oh, we'll support the bill,' but then they go on to say, 'The government's not doing enough and DV is really bad,' somehow, I believe, reflecting on coalition members, that we're not doing enough in this space. Every coalition member and every member of this parliament, whether they are on the crossbench or in the opposition in the Labor Party, takes DV seriously. I know I do—very much so. I'll talk in a moment about the White Ribbon march in Redcliffe. But it is a little bit rich for some members opposite to get up here on air and take a partisan approach. Domestic violence in Australia should have a bipartisan approach, and the fact is that this bill that we're debating now provides new protections for people who suffer domestic violence in Australia. These are additional protections that don't exist at the moment. The fact is that the Fair Work Commission has looked into this quite extensively. We know that the Fair Work Commission undertook an exhaustive process to strike the right balance in setting up a new minimum entitlement for family and domestic violence leave. In particular, the question of what type of leave should be available to victims was considered in extensive detail by the commission. And this wasn't just a short process; this took almost four years. Between October 2014 and July 2018 the commission considered 68 written submissions from 27 different parties, reviewed over 2,000 pages of documentation, heard evidence from over 20 witnesses and held over 11 days of hearings. Submissions were called and hearings were convened for every step in the process. Evidence was given from unions, from employers and from community groups, all actively engaged in the commission process. After carefully weighing up all the evidence, the commission came to a very clear determination in its decision. It explicitly stated: … we are not satisfied, at this time, that it is necessary to provide ten days paid family and domestic violence leave to all employees covered by modern awards. That's what the Fair Work Commission, which the previous Labor government set up, found after years of research. That's what it came to. The commission also said that there was little evidence about: … the extent to which employers informally or formally provide such leave or the extent to which employees access existing entitlements for family and domestic violence leave. The commission concluded: … the provision of paid leave will increase costs to employers and that given the lack of data, the impact on employers of that increase in costs is difficult to assess. I raise that because, when opposition members argue for that, they show a partisan view and try to reflect badly on the government. I think what we need to understand here is the different capacity of different sizes of business. Many businesses currently do provide paid DV leave, and they've been rattled off here today by different speakers. I congratulate those large businesses that do that, and some small and medium-sized businesses also provide that. There are many, many small businesses in my electorate with a turnover of well under $10 million—perhaps even $2 million—that are family businesses and, if they had a staff member in a domestic violence situation, would most certainly give them some paid time off to be able to go to court, access a property or visit a financial institution if they'd run out of other entitlements like personal and sick leave. They certainly wouldn't differentiate, but not every small business has the capacity to do that. So I think Labor's criticism and policy hasn't necessarily been thought through on the impacts to every business and every woman who would find herself in this situation. We heard the good news from the Minister for Women last week in relation to the Women's economic security statement 2018. We're seeing, under our government, the gender pay gap diminishing quite significantly, by three per cent. We don't hear members opposite talk about that or about the fact that there are 3.1 million women now employed full time in Australia. They're some great results. This bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018, also contributes to that, which is very important. MPs in this place and in the other place, as I said before, support women and the fight against DV in a bipartisan way and also support children. Just two weeks ago, I participated in the White Ribbon march in Redcliffe. It started off a few years ago, when there would have been maybe 50 people who marched down the street from the Redcliffe Police Station up to the Mon Komo Hotel. This is organised by Encircle Redcliffe and Encircle Strathpine. This year there were well over 600 people. There were a number of different schools participating: St Patrick's College, which isn't in my electorate; The Lakes College at North Lakes; Clontarf Beach State High School; Clontarf Beach State School; Humpybong State School; Redcliffe State High School; the Australian Trade College North Brisbane; Scarborough State School; and, I think, Mueller College. A number of different schools participated—primary schools and high schools. The signal was that when the men got up to speak—and I spoke on this issue as the federal member for the area—the young boys also got up to pledge that it's never okay to hit women or to have domestic violence against women or children. So the government is acting here today, but as a community we can all do more as well. That's why that bipartisan march that I spoke about was so important, because it was educating the young boys as well as the young girls on how we should treat each other. I spoke about the fact that when we are dealing with each other we should be saying, 'I'm okay and you're okay,' and treating people well. I want to thank Encircle Redcliffe. But it's not just political leaders and it's not just this government, or the Australian parliament, that makes a stand against this; it's all leaders. It's religious leaders, community leaders, school leaders, community groups, emergency services and the police. Up in my area Redcliffe, North Lakes, Sandgate and Carseldine have all had White Ribbon signs out the front of their police stations. The ambulance service and the fire service participated in the march. It's parents teaching their children. My father always taught me that you don't hit women. I have three sons of my own, and I teach my three sons the same because I want them to grow up to treat women and children with respect and grow up to be great citizens in the Australian community that our older Australians have left us. We live in the best country in the world because of older Australians and what they left us. I support this bill and I'd like to see further speakers support this bill in a bipartisan manner rather than scoring political points that they think are in the best interests of their party. 18:36 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Last week saw the release of the annual Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey led by the Australian National Research Organisation for Women's Safety. Sadly, the results showed that many in the community still hold outdated and harmful views around family violence. For example, 32 per cent believe that a female victim who does not leave an abusive partner is partly responsible for the abuse continuing and 21 per cent of Australians believe that sometimes a woman can make a man so angry that he hits her when he didn't mean to. If we are going to make a genuine attempt to eliminate domestic and family violence in Australia, then we need to change the way we view violence against women. We must make it clear that we no longer accept that it is merely a private matter conducted behind closed doors. Instead, we need to encourage victims of violence to share their experiences safe in the knowledge that their employers will support them. This bill amends the Fair Work Act to insert a new National Employment Standard of five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. In speaking with employers from a broad range of industries, I was comforted by the fact that many acknowledged and accepted the intersection between home and work and acknowledged the profound impact that disruption in one will have in the other. In their submission to the Senate legislation committee inquiry on this bill, the Law Council of Australia provided a helpful explanation for the interaction between work and family violence. The Law Council said: Research indicates that women who experience family violence have a more disrupted work history, are on lower personal incomes, have had to change jobs frequently and are [more] often employed in casual and part time work, compared to women with no experience of violence. What this then perpetuates is a circle of disadvantage: financial hardship confines victims to their abusive relationships. This bill attempts to break that cycle of disadvantage by allowing victims of family and domestic violence time away from the workplace without the fear of losing their jobs. If women are going to start a new life away from their abusive partner, a consistent source of income is essential. An employee will be eligible for unpaid leave if they meet three conditions: firstly, the employee is experiencing domestic or family violence; secondly, the employee needs to do something with the impact of the violence, such as attend a court hearing; and, thirdly, it is impractical for the employee to deal with the impact of family and domestic violence outside of ordinary working hours. The importance of the National Employment Standards should not be underestimated. A national employment standard applies to all national system employees irrespective of whether the employment contract is a modern award, an enterprise agreement or an individual agreement. It will apply to all employees whether full time, part time or casual. It will be available to all employees, whether it is their first day or their last day in the role. This bill will bring the NES in line with the modern award standard set by the Fair Work Commission and ensure consistency for both employers and employees. But remember, this is just a minimum standard. It does not prevent employers from going one step further and implementing a paid leave policy or perhaps providing additional days of unpaid leave. While the bill before the parliament today provides only five days of unpaid leave, the inclusion of paid leave was the subject of great debate during the committee inquiry process. It is appropriate that I touch briefly on the issue, in circumstances where discussion on this point will no doubt continue in the Senate. In a paper prepared by Dr Jim Stanford of the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute and referred to in the Senate committee report for the bill, the estimated financial impact of 10 days paid family violence leave would be minimal, due to predicted low take-up rates. Dr Stanford estimated that such a scheme will cost between $80 million and $120 million per year for the Australian economy, which equates to around 0.2 per cent of the current payroll. PricewaterhouseCoopers, NAB, ANZ, Commonwealth Bank and KPMG were all offered as examples of where generous paid family violence leave schemes are offset by increased employee productivity. I applaud those companies who are taking the initiative and working hard to generate the cultural change needed to eliminate violence against women. However, not every electorate will be home to such large corporations, and I'm conscious of the impact that 10 days of possible paid leave would have on small businesses at this time. In my electorate of Mayo we have a wide variety of businesses, from boutique distilleries to large fertiliser plants. Of the businesses registered in Mayo, 99.6 per cent have a turnover of less than $10 million and therefore meet the generally accepted definition of a small business. If we drill down into those figures a little more, we know that over 40 per cent have a turnover between $50,000 and $200,000 and over 25 per cent have a turnover of $50,000 or less. These are small businesses. They are the newsagents, the hairdressers and the gift shops that make up the main streets of our small regional towns. We are not talking about Coles, the Commonwealth Bank or indeed Qantas. In voicing my concerns, I am mindful they may be misinterpreted as placing the economic interests of employers above the personal safety of employees or as meaning that an employer's balance sheet in some way could determine the level of support they are obliged to provide to employees. That is not my intention. I have met with victims of family violence and, having listened to their stories, I am acutely aware of the positive impact that an employer can have on an employee's journey to independence and safety. I am in favour of compassionate, reasonable and appropriate measures that enable an employee to escape and recover from dangerous situations. But such a measure must be economically viable for small businesses if it is to be sustainable. I also note that the Fair Work Commission considered this issue earlier this year. Having received a request from the Australian Council of Trade Unions to consider the inclusion of 10 days paid family violence leave in all modern awards, the Fair Work Commission considered a significant number of submissions from stakeholders, before ultimately deciding that five days unpaid leave would be the best approach. That entitlement was inserted into 123 modern industry awards and now covers around 2.3 million workers. This took effect on 1 August 2018. The introduction of the family violence national employment standard will provide a baseline from which employers can choose to adopt additional entitlements that can be tailored to the unique requirements of their workforce, and I strongly encourage them to do so. I again note that this is the minimum standard and that going forward it may be that the introduction of paid leave is an appropriate progression. Of course, in an ideal world we wouldn't need to offer family and domestic violence leave. I accept that both government and the private sector are working to eliminate family violence, but the statistics suggest that that day is still a long way off. One woman is killed by her current or former partner every week in Australia—one woman every week. Recent reports by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the University of New South Wales suggest that 27 per cent of Australian women have experienced violence or emotional abuse at the hands of a partner and 34 per cent have experienced some form of violence. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that 23 per cent of women have experienced violence at the hands of a partner before they even reach 15 years of age. The bill recognises the scale of the problem of family violence in Australia. It is an acknowledgement that family violence is not limited by geography or occupation; it can occur to anyone at any time. I believe that this is a measured first step in line with the Fair Work Commission and I welcome a review. I would urge the government to build in a review in the Senate process of this bill, perhaps in two years time. But wherever you are and whatever role you have, this bill will go a long way to ensuring that you will have the safety net that you need to get you and your children the help that you need. I commend the bill to the House. 18:45 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Family violence is a stain on this nation's character that we, as a parliament, do not do nearly enough to address, and I'm sorry to say that this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018, also does not do enough to address it. The resources needed to address family violence and its horrendous impacts continue to be disgracefully inadequate. This parliament managed in one day to pass into law a bill to get tough on strawberry vandals. That decision showed what can be done with political will and bipartisanship. If strawberries require this parliament's urgent attention, surely the women and children of this nation deserve no less. I rise today to support this bill. It will go some way to help people suffering from family violence, but let's not pretend it goes nearly far enough. While this chamber is, I assume, unanimously supporting this measure, the government continues to refuse to commit to reinstating $18 million that would ensure the survival of the Keeping Women Safe in their Home program. That is $18 million to keep women safe. It should not even be a question. Last week the Prime Minister told this House that considerations for the funding were going through the 'proper processes'. The notion of proper process would be fair enough, except this is a government that ignores proper process at the drop of a hat. Did the government follow proper process when it handed half a billion dollars to a foundation to manage the Great Barrier Reef or when it flagged moving our embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? It leaves a sour taste in the mouth of those suffering family violence to know this is a government that demands that the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed for the expenditure of $18 million that keeps women and children safe but abandons proper process for spending hundreds of millions of dollars on reefs and embassies. Talk about priorities! In this term of the parliament, we have approved billions of dollars in expenditure for defence, hundreds of millions of dollars for national security and tens of millions of dollars to upgrade security at this very Capital Hill, all in the name of keeping Australians safe, yet it is $18 million to keep women safe at home that has the government saying, 'Steady on, we need to take a look at whether this is affordable.' I am pleased, therefore, that a Labor government, if elected at the next election, will reinstate this vital funding. I would like to acknowledge the work done by the group Our Watch, which last week visited this parliament in order to educate parliamentarians about the crisis of violence that is engulfing this country. Our Watch is dedicated to driving the big changes that are needed to arrest family violence: culture, behaviour and, importantly, gender and power imbalances. I urge all in this House to log on to ourwatch.org.au to read and learn about the violence that blights homes in every suburb, every city and every town across all socioeconomic backgrounds and incomes. It is this violence that kills women and children. Yes, I know that men suffer from family violence too, but the vast majority of victims and survivors are women. The vast majority of perpetrators are men. This should not be allowed to be diverted into a 'but men suffer too' argument. We have three weeks to go before 2018 draws to a close. So far, more than 60 women have been violently killed by men in Australia this year, with the killer in many cases being the victim's current or former partner or a man otherwise known to her. That is more than 60 women—more than one a week. It is not just unacceptable; it is criminally negligent that it has been allowed to get anywhere near this, when we have the tools and the knowledge to save lives. We just need the political will. The government and the opposition agree that keeping Australians safe is one of the most important duties any government has, which explains the billions of dollars we invest in intelligence, national security and defence. There is little quibbling about this expenditure. There is an acknowledgement across the board that it is required to keep Australians safe from present and future threats. But, when more than 60 women are killed a year in this country, we have to ask ourselves whether we are doing enough to keep Australians safe, not just from external and potential threats but from threats who live amongst us, in our homes, sharing our beds. If terrorists were murdering 60 women a year in Australia, we would move heaven and earth to stop the carnage. This is not a new crisis. It has not crept upon us unawares. Five years ago, the Chair of Our Watch, former senator Natasha Stott Despoja, called violence against women a national crisis. As she notes, five years on, the number of women who have been killed has increased. It has got worse, and I do fear that, without strong political leadership to drive cultural change amongst boys and young men, it may well get worse still. There is a growing movement across the Western world of right-wing men's groups that are rooted both in racism and in misogyny. Some are in lock step with increasingly prominent Nazi movements, emboldened by mainstream conservative parties adopting some of their platforms. One of these far Right groups is the Proud Boys, formed in the US by an objectionable individual called Gavin McInnes, who openly boasts of being violent and antisocial and who revels in notoriety. His followers identify themselves as 'proud Western chauvinists'. In my speech, I've got some notes here about just how objectionable he is, but I'm pleased to say that, in between my writing this speech and coming into this parliament, the government has decided not to allow him a visa into this country, so I'm pleased about that. He is somebody who has no place in this country, spreading his hateful manifesto. Nationally, we know that one in four women will experience emotional abuse by a current or former partner from the age of 15. One in five women experience sexual violence from the age of 15. One in two women experience sexual harassment during her life. On average, one woman a week is murdered by a current or former partner. Intimate partner violence is the single greatest health risk factor for women aged 25 to 44. Family violence against women is the single largest driver of homelessness for women. A history of family violence is a common factor in child protection cases and is the cause of a police call-out once every two minutes. And we know that the cost to business of violence against women and their children was, according to KPMG, an estimated $1.9 billion in 2015-16. Recently, I attended an event in New Norfolk, a town in my electorate, organised by Jessica, a young woman who spoke openly about her own exposure to family violence. She spoke about how isolating it was to keep her emotional and physical abuse secret. She spoke about the time her partner kidnapped her at gunpoint. Fortunately for Jessica, her story has a happy ending, but she came close to being another woman killed at the hands of a man she had called her partner, another face on a chart filled with too many faces already. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that two out of three women who experience family violence are in the workforce. This statistic presents both challenges and opportunities, but most of all it presents a requirement for government, for employers and for work colleagues to think differently about their roles and their responsibilities to each other. There is no doubt that a comprehensive response to family violence requires a workplace response, which brings us to this bill. The bill before the House, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018, has been written on the advice of the Fair Work Commission Full Bench decision which earlier in the year expressed the opinion that all employees should have access to unpaid family and domestic violence leave. In short, the bench decided to provide five days of unpaid leave per annum to all employees, including casuals, who are experiencing family violence. The full bench considered a number of matters relating to access to the entitlement and decided that the unpaid leave entitlement will apply to all employees, will be available in full at the commencement of each 12-month period rather than accruing progressively during a year of service, will not accumulate from year to year and will be available in full to part-time and casual employees—that is, not prorated. The full bench also decided not to require employees to consume their available paid leave entitlement before accessing unpaid family violence leave. This bill is a step in the right direction, but it has taken too long to come before the parliament, and it certainly does not go far enough. I note that the minister first committed to unpaid leave at the end of March but did not see fit to introduce this bill until last month. That is eight months that this bill has been languishing. We dealt with strawberry vandalism in one day, but it has taken eight months for the government to bring women's safety to the attention of the parliament. This bill should provide for paid family violence leave, not unpaid. That is why I am supporting Labor's amendment to this bill. Women and men who need time off work to deal with family violence should not have to worry about losing financial security. We know that the most dangerous and unpredictable time a woman faces is when she decides to leave a violent relationship. She will often need to find new accommodation, arrange security, access an apprehended violence order from the police, seek treatment for injuries and perhaps attend court appearances. When a woman works, it is difficult to fit these necessary aspects in, particularly if she is doing so covertly for her own safety. If a woman needs to take time off work to do these vital things to keep herself and her children safe, she should not have to worry about losing pay or her job to do so. The need for paid leave has been recognised by Australian unions for some time, and they have been working hard for its inclusion in awards and enterprise bargaining agreements. I was proud to stand with Unions Tasmania and the ACTU to back their campaign for 10 days of paid family violence leave. Like many of my colleagues, I signed a pledge to work towards it, and it is a pledge that those of us on this side of the House will deliver if we are elected to government. Once again, just as with child labour laws, the eight-hour day, safe working conditions, minimum wages, penalty rates and superannuation, it is Australian unions that are leading the important and necessary social changes that improve Australian lives. Once again, it is the Liberal Party standing in the way, claiming that it is too hard or too expensive, that it will lead to ruination and the end of days. We have been here before. The Liberals' kneejerk reaction is always to oppose progress rather than embrace it. Paid family leave is now available at a number of worksites across my electorate, including Able Australia in New Norfolk, Anglicare in Perth, May Shaw in Swansea, and the New Norfolk, Campbelltown, Oatlands, Deloraine and St Helens hospitals. There have been no reports of access to this leave being abused. I am pleased to report that a number of councils in my electorate also include family violence provisions in their EBAs, including Meander Valley, Break O'Day, Glamorgan Spring Bay, Central Highlands, Derwent Valley, Southern Midlands and Sorell. No-one is keen to use it, but the inclusion of 10 days of paid family violence leave is vital. It provides an essential safety net. Research by the Australia Institute in 2016 estimated that domestic violence leave wage payouts will be equivalent to less than one fiftieth of one per cent—that is, 0.02 per cent—of existing payrolls. That is a very, very small—infinitesimal—price to pay for women's safety. That study also found that the costs to employers associated with the payouts are likely to be largely or completely offset by benefits to employers associated with the provision of paid family violence leave, including reduced turnover and improved productivity. Last year Labor announced that, if elected, a Bill Shorten Labor government will introduce 10 days of paid family violence leave into the National Employment Standards. We remain disappointed that the government has refused to join us in this important commitment. It would be so much better if the Australian people could see a bipartisan commitment on this very important matter. For many women, their workplace is a primary support mechanism. Their work colleagues, often their employer, may be the most important support they have when suffering family violence. For others, going to work can be an escape. The thought of losing a job affects not just financial security but also social support. We need to do more. If Labor is elected, we will do more. 19:00 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I would like to tell you the story of a young woman that is a classic example in the cycle that is family and domestic violence. Anna was married and had two children. Her children were still in primary school when the abuse began. And after multiple acts of violence over a period of a few years, enough was enough and one day Anna was courageous enough to leave. Anna expected the emotional turmoil and the unfortunate but expected incidents with her ex-husband, but what Anna didn't expect was the time she needed during her work hours to get the protection she and her children needed. She was told she'd need to apply to the courts for an intervention order to protect herself from her ex-partner. Many of the meetings she needed to attend to protect herself and her children were only available during business hours, when she was required to be at work. Anna struggled on for months in secret, taking time off work as sick leave. By the time Anna told her employer what was happening, she had missed a lot of work and was worried then that she might lose her job. However, Anna was lucky. What she hadn't known was that her employer was willing to offer her domestic violence leave. This was the support that she needed to get her life in order without the risk of losing her job. However, sadly, Anna is not alone: more than 210,000 Australian women were victims of family and domestic violence in 2016. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that around two out of every three women who experience family and domestic violence are in the workforce. There can be no doubt that a comprehensive response to family and domestic violence involves a workplace response, because being a victim of family and violence can put jobs at risk. Women, like Anna, may need time off work, because they are injured and need to attend medical appointments, have to go to court to get a restraining order, or have to pack up and move house. We know financial insecurity makes women more vulnerable to family and domestic violence. We know being a victim of family and domestic violence makes you more likely to experience lifelong economic disadvantage. It is a very vicious cycle. Having a job and some degree of financial independence makes it easier for women who want to leave an abusive relationship. It's easier to walk away when you don't have to worry about whether you'll be able to afford the rent or whether you'll be able to put food on the table for children. One in twelve women return after trying to leave a violent relationship, in part because they have nowhere to go and are struggling to support themselves and their children. That's not a price anyone should have to pay when trying to stay safe. That is why it is so important that women have the financial support to ensure they stay employed. I have heard from many frontline workers in Townsville in the domestic violence services who say the women that they are helping are delaying leaving violent relationships as they fear that taking time off work will lead to them losing their job. Women should never be in a position where they have to choose between staying alive and keeping their children safe or keeping their job. And it is very good news that many employers and companies understand that women who are victims of family and domestic violence need to be supported to keep their job. Telstra, NAB, CUB, Qantas, Virgin Australia, IKEA, Dulux and Blundstone all provide paid domestic violence leave. Medibank has announced that it will start providing unlimited personal leave for employees to deal with issues relating to family and domestic violence. These companies demonstrate that there is a clear business case for supporting your employees through tough times. We know that, in addition to the terrible personal and social cost of family and domestic violence, there is also a significant cost to business. In May 2016, KPMG estimated that the cost of family violence against women and their children to production and in the business sector was $1.9 billion for the year 2015-16. Even a small reduction in family and domestic violence rates from the introduction of paid leave would more than pay for a few days of additional leave. State governments are also following suit. Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT now provide 10 days paid domestic violence leave for people working in the public sector. Others, such as South Australia and Victoria, provide more. Federal Labor has been calling for some time for the introduction of paid family and domestic violence leave. Sadly, for far too long, we did not see much but walls and whiteboards from those opposite. The former Minister for Women Michaelia Cash thought family and domestic violence leave would provide a 'perverse incentive' for employers to discriminate against women. Finance Minister Cormann has been so callous as to describe paid family and domestic violence leave as just 'another cost on our economy'. Women did not need those comments. Victims did not need the LNP pushback. These comments demonstrated ignorance regarding this issue, a critical issue for both women and the national economy. Research by the Australia Institute in 2016 estimated that family and domestic violence leave wage payouts would be equivalent to less than one-fifth of one per cent, 0.02 per cent, of existing payrolls. The study also found that the costs to employers associated with these payouts are likely to be largely or completely offset by benefits to employers associated with the provision of paid family and domestic violence leave, including reduced turnover and improved productivity. Many companies have already started picking up where the LNP government has failed. More than 1,000 enterprise agreements approved under the Fair Work Act between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2017 provided for 10 or more days of paid family and domestic violence leave. We shouldn't have to lobby this government for what is rapidly becoming the norm. The Male Champions of Change Playing our part report in 2015 also outlined this point, suggesting that 10 days paid leave appears to be developing to be the norm. After much lobbying effort, we have this bill here today, which, it must be said, does not go anywhere near far enough. This bill implements five days paid family and domestic violence leave, which falls short of the growing norm and Labor's commitment to 10 days. It is a grudging effort by those opposite. The Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 follows the decision of the Fair Work Commission in March this year to insert a clause into modern awards providing five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. This decision came into effect on 1 August this year, meaning that more than two million award-reliant employees are now entitled to five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. The bill amends the National Employment Standards to provide all employees with an entitlement of up to five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave if they are experiencing family and domestic violence and need to do something to deal with the impact of that family and domestic violence and it is impractical to do that thing outside of their ordinary hours of work. The provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 appear to reflect a model clause and provide the five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave entitlement. It will apply to all employees, including casuals; will be available in full at the commencement of each 12-month period rather than accruing progressively during a year of service; will not accumulate from year to year; and will be available in full to part-time and casual employees—that is, not pro rata. It is disappointing that it has taken this long for the LNP government to move from their absolute opposition to family and domestic violence leave to their belated support for unpaid leave. We note that the government first committed to unpaid leave at the end of March but did not introduce this bill until now. For more than six months, victims have had to wait. We know that the most dangerous time for a woman is when she is leaving a violent relationship. She will often need to find new accommodation and security, get an apprehended violence order from police, seek treatment for injuries and perhaps attend court appearances. As was the case for Anna: she needed to take time off work to do these vital things to keep herself and her family safe. She would not have to worry about losing her job to do so, and that would be a good thing. She should be able to count on continuing to receive a pay cheque and being able to go back to work. Last year Labor announced that a Shorten Labor government would introduce 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave into the National Employment Standards. As I said, it is disappointing that the LNP government will not be bipartisan on this important and life-saving commitment. Ten days is what a fair and reasonable community would expect. In meeting with women, family and domestic violence services, victims and unions the message is clear: 10 days of domestic and family violence leave is needed and it is urgently needed. I support this bill, but I call on the LNP government to urgently enact the 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave that is so desperately needed by so many women and children in our communities. 19:11 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo This is an opportunity for the government to listen not only to the reasons of the people on this side of the House but also to the reasons that are being expressed in the community. Whether it be our trade union movement, our many not-for-profits working in the space or our state governments, all are calling for paid family violence leave. It is disappointing that within this debate we've got the same old, tired rhetoric coming out of the conservatives when we're debating paid leave. We are hearing similar comments—that it would send businesses broke, that it would be abused and that people won't hire women—to those that they were using about paid maternity and paternity leave back when it was being discussed in the community and in this parliament. They are the same arguments the conservatives used way back when around an allocation of paid sick leave and paid parental leave. They are the same old arguments from the conservatives, 'We'll let you have it unpaid, but you cannot have an entitlement of paid,' because of outdated views in relation to leave. Like many in this House, I have met women in these circumstances where, if they had been able to access an allocation of paid family violence leave, their lives could have been very different. It was probably about 18 months ago that I met a woman in Kyneton. She wanted to share her story, her journey. At that stage she was finally in suitable accommodation for her and her son. When she decided to leave she was homeless, because she was locked into a mortgage with her former partner and was still paying that. She drove to Melbourne because there was no accommodation available in the Macedon Ranges. It's a regional area. That is common in a lot of regional areas. She arrived at a shelter and they said, 'Our priority is for women who don't have transport; because you have a car, you can sleep in your car.' After a few nights of that she rang her employer and said, 'I can't come in,' because, of course, she was homeless, living out of her car, and eventually she did actually lose her job. The employer was incredibly sympathetic but basically said, 'We are going to terminate your employment.' Being homeless without a job, trying to find somewhere, trying to get herself back up on her feet and dealing with the trauma associated with family violence—it was a longer journey back for her and for her son. She raised this experience with me to say that we need to do more. It isn't just about having shelters, which would have helped her, or suitable accommodation; it's also about making sure that people are able to keep their jobs. I had another experience where a small business came to see me. They wanted to share their experience. One of their employees, a valued employee, was in a situation where she decided to leave family violence. The small business was not aware of what had been happening at home, and they actually reached out to Fair Work to say, 'Can you help us? We want to know how to support our employee properly.' They spoke to me about how they were shocked that there were no rules and no entitlements for this particular employee. It is a small business. There are only about five people who work in the business. They did give her leave, and they did give her paid leave, because they wanted her to stay on. They supported her through that process. The reason why this small business came to speak to me is that, as they said, 'Lisa, every victim and every survivor of family violence should have access to leave.' Because the entitlement wasn't there, they actually then and went and spoke to the Women's Health Loddon Mallee service and the Centre for Non-Violence to try to work out the best way to do it. They should be very proud of what they did. They speak out and they speak regularly at different events to encourage other small businesses in our area to offer the same to their employees. So the need for paid family violence leave is there and established. Even in regional areas like my own, we have examples of how it can help change people's lives. We know the stats. One woman a week is killed as a result of domestic violence. It is a shame and it is a national tragedy. The ABS estimates that two women out of every three who experience domestic violence are in the workforce. The statistics are true. Something I think is really quite shocking is when conservative commentators—and I'm saying 'conservative', I'm not saying 'Liberal' and 'National', because there are people who I know are Liberal and National MPs who do support action on this issue—say that this entitlement could be abused. I've never met a survivor of family violence who has faked it, and it's just insulting to say that. It is quite horrific for anyone to go through this. It's not by choice that they've ended up in this situation; it's not through any fault of their own. It has happened, and when they make the tough decision to leave, we should be doing all that we can to ensure that they not only have access to appropriate support services but also have access to entitlements such as we're discussing today. If the survivor does leave, there's also a lot of work we need to do with our businesses to ensure that the survivor and other employees are safe, because quite often the perpetrator knows where to find them if they're at work. That's another area where the Centre for Non-Violence in Bendigo is supporting local businesses so they can best manage when the perpetrator arrives at a woman's—predominantly a woman's—workplace in search of her. There is a bit of a triage and wraparound service that is needed. Whilst it's welcome that, with this particular bill that's in front of us, we will have five days of unpaid family and domestic violence leave—it's a first, small step in the right direction—I really call upon the government to back in Labor's proposal to see it be paid and be 10 days. When I've met with survivors in my part of the world and when I've met with unions who've raised this issue with me on multiple occasions, there is no doubt that 10 days isn't going to be enough for a lot of the women in this situation. But it is a really good start and it is something that people can tap into. Others have mentioned that it could be about attending medical appointments, enrolling your kids in new schools, meeting with lawyers to discuss issues or looking at protection orders. Countless time is involved when a woman makes the tough decision to leave, and there is an amount of work that occurs and support that they require, not to mention their own trauma and their own experience of family violence that they've also got to work through. In a lot of cases, there is also a lot of financial abuse that is involved with victims of family violence. It's not just the physical bruises or the physical attacks. Quite often it's linked to financial abuse, where victims may not have access to funds or there have been ridiculous debts run up on credit cards in their names or on joint credit cards that they're then responsible for. So meetings with financial counsellors are important. It doesn't matter which organisation I talk to locally; they all agree that we need to take a step towards paid family violence leave to really support women to stay in work and to help them access an entitlement so they can be financially okay—not get ahead but be okay. Moving at any time is expensive, let alone when you are fleeing violence. You just get up and go. You grab the kids, grab the pets, get in the car and go. It's that moment of, 'I have to get out; I need to get free.' You don't think in that first fleeting moment, 'Do I have the financial means to do it?' Unfortunately, for far too many women that's the reason why they end up staying: they can't see how they can survive. They might lose their job. They can't see a way forward, and it is a great tragedy that, quite often, women will stay in an abusive relationship because they can't see a way through financially. That was very common in the eighties and nineties, back when we didn't talk about this so openly and when we referred to these families as just unhappy families or troubled homes or said that things weren't going too well. Women did stay in abusive relationships because they felt that they couldn't leave and couldn't protect their children financially, and that needs to change. As I mentioned, a number of the unions have been advocating for this for quite some time. I want to acknowledge the work of the Australian Services Union, the union that represents a lot of women who work in this space. Its representatives were coming to see us as members of parliament, in our electorates and here in parliament, and rather than saying, 'This is an entitlement that we want for our members,' they were saying, 'This is an entitlement that we want the women who access our services to have.' So here was a union advocating for its clients to have the right to paid family violence leave. That is extraordinary. For all the name-calling we get from those opposite about unions, very rarely is there recognition of the good work that they do for broader social movements and on issues such as this. In my electorate, I had City of Greater Bendigo workers, women who worked at the Centre for Non-Violence, and women who worked at Annie North, which is a refuge in my electorate, come to see me, and they spoke to me about the need for this place to adopt these amendments to the Fair Work Act. They spoke in quite passionate terms about how, if you really want to help women who are survivors of family and domestic violence to get back on track, having access to paid family violence leave is a good step. What it also does—and I acknowledge that this will also happen because of this bill—is encourage a conversation with employers and employees around the country. Once you have access to an entitlement, it means that businesses will be reaching out to know how to best manage it. As I said, there are businesses who are already doing it. It's not just the big corporates that we've heard about—businesses like IKEA and CUB. It's also small businesses. At the moment they're doing it in a very ad hoc way, but we could do more for the millions of workers who are on the award by making sure that we have access to paid family and domestic violence leave in our awards. There's a lot of work we need to do when it comes to industrial relations, and I feel that this government is really sort of tinkering at the edges with bits and pieces here, when we could have done so much more with the bill before us. It is welcome, though, because it is a step in the right direction. But I encourage those opposite to consider the amendments that have been put forward by the opposition. More than 1,000 enterprise agreements already have provided access to 10 days or more of paid family violence leave. It is, again, a demonstration of how workers and employers are getting on with the job of making sure that these clauses are in their agreements. I want to acknowledge the work that some of our construction unions, mining unions and manufacturing unions have done. Even though their female workforce might be quite small, they too have included these clauses in their agreements, because they acknowledge the importance of every worker—every woman—having access to this. Labor has listened to the victims, to the survivors, to the frontline workers, to the businesses, to the unions and to the organisations that deal with domestic and family violence each and every day. If we are serious about tackling this scourge and making sure that women do feel safer, we have to look at the financial side of things. That is why I support the amendments that have been put forward, and I encourage the government also to do so. 19:26 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman I rise to speak to the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018. Labor supports this bill in principle, but we note that it falls far short of Labor's commitment to introduce 10 days of paid domestic and family violence leave. I thank Senators Marshall, O'Neill and Waters for their dissenting report, following the Senate inquiry into this bill, which lays out the reasons for the need for paid leave. Way back in 2008 or 2009, when I was still federal secretary of the Australian Nursing Federation, as it was called then, I was contacted by a woman called Ludo McFerran, who ran a small outfit called the Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse, an organisation dedicated to working for the eradication of domestic violence and to helping survivors. I met with Ludo, who I quickly realised had a life's passion to help people experiencing this violence, to raise awareness about the issue, to bring it into the realm of consciousness of our legislators and to find best-practice initiatives to stop it. She was driven, but in a gentle, determined and somewhat strident way. She told me she had had a revelation of sorts. All the while she had been trying to work with governments, with police, with employers and with other organisations and policymakers, and still the issue of family and domestic violence was not raised in prominence, was not being properly addressed, was not getting the traction that it deserved with legislators or policymakers, and was not being taken seriously enough by the justice system. Women were dying. In fact, right now, one woman a week dies at the hands of a domestic partner or someone she knows intimately. It is a national shame. The issue of a young boy who was tragically king-hit in Kings Cross rightly got immediate media attention and a legislative outcome, yet the issue of hundreds and hundreds of women being violently killed receives barely any attention. Returning to Ludo, she told me she realised that a new path had to be forged, a path that would raise awareness, destigmatise the problem for women survivors, create effective outcomes, and focus policy and, ultimately, specific legislation. In forging that new path, she turned her mind to the union movement. It was a sunny, bright day that I joined with her, Tanya Plibersek, and comrades from the NTEU at the University of New South Wales. This was a union meeting to discuss the insertion of a clause that specifically allowed for paid family and domestic violence leave into the EBA being negotiated with the university. The clause had been developed in conjunction with Ludo and the clearing house. It not only went to paid leave but also to the development of training for HR staff and line managers to help them work through options with staff experiencing family and domestic violence leave. It dealt with issues of safety for the employees and managers, from perpetrators coming onsite, and with the privacy of the workers who were affected. As a nurse, I had seen firsthand the pain and suffering of the physical and psychological consequences of being attacked by a partner or intimate other. I saw the shame and, often, the lies that went with presentation at hospital. I saw the impacts on the children in the family and I saw all too often the complete desperation and despair when there was nowhere else to go. I relayed my experiences to the union members, encouraging them to continue to fight hard to get the clause up in their EBA. Unfortunately, they were not successful. The university would not include such a clause, but they did develop a comprehensive policy position, and a trajectory had begun. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 114 ADJOURNMENT Lalor Electorate 114 19:30 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor The Regional Rail Link was a significant investment from the former federal Labor government that has been invaluable to the thousands of people in my community who use the service to commute to Sunshine or to the city. The fact that car parks at our railway stations are full by 8 am—correction, sometimes as early as 7 am—demonstrates that people living in Melbourne's outer western suburbs want and need to use public transport. It was never imagined that this line, the Wyndham Vale line, on its way through to Geelong, would attract such custom. It is vital therefore that we are not only investing in additional public transport services, as we have seen from the state Victorian government, but also delivering measures to ensure that commuters who choose to use public transport can do so with minimum hassle. I was proud to recently join the shadow minister for infrastructure, transport, cities and regional development, Anthony Albanese; the Victorian Treasurer, Tim Pallas; and the newly elected member for Tarneit, Sarah Connolly, at the Tarneit train station. The member for Grayndler announced that a future Shorten Labor government, with the Andrews state Labor government, will jointly fund a $15 million expansion of car parking facilities at the Tarneit train station. The commitment to build an additional 400 car park spaces at Tarneit station will make a real and practical difference to the lives of people who rely on public transport, while also reducing congestion for local residents. This is fantastic news for our community. But, equally, it is disappointing that over the past five years those opposite have failed to invest in this vital infrastructure that my community needs and deserves. There are those members in my community who would like to say that the people who are accessing Tarneit train station should be doing so on a bike. I take this opportunity to remind those people in my community and in others that sometimes parents are dropping children at child care; if you look into the cars at the Tarneit train station on any given morning, you'll see many a child seat in those cars. People have incredibly busy lives and we need to make it easier for them both to access employment and to have as much family time as they can. Earlier this year, I launched a petition calling on the federal government to fund a desperately needed full Medicare rebate MRI licence for the Werribee Mercy Hospital. So far my request has been ignored by the federal government and the Minister for Health. To date my petition has collected over 500 signatures and many locals have taken the time to send me emails or have a chat to me about what access to a full Medicare rebate MRI would mean to them. Vicki from my community said, 'The Werribee Mercy Hospital needs an MRI licence. My husband had a bleed on the brain and we went to the city very stressed.' The last thing you should have to worry about when you or your loved ones are sick is whether or not your local public hospital has the equipment required and the licence required to give you a diagnosis and a treatment. Further, I refer to Lisa, who said, 'As someone who has had to pay for four MRIs privately so far, I think this is long overdue.' Being forced to pay high out-of-pocket costs through the private system or travel long distances to access Medicare rebated scans is not good enough. But this is the reality that residents in my community face. I am pleased that, despite being ignored by the federal health minister, the shadow minister for health, Catherine King, the member for Ballarat, has listened to my community and has announced that a Shorten Labor government will deliver a full Medicare rebate MRI licence to our local Werribee Mercy Hospital. Again, this is another example of Labor listening and delivering for residents in Melbourne's outer western suburbs. On a sombre note this evening, my community, many young people, many families, schools, and community and sporting organisations are deeply mourning the loss of a vibrant, loving young man who left us suddenly and in tragic circumstances last week. I want to send my love and thoughts and deep condolences to his family, to his parents and brother and sisters; to his extended family; and to all in our community who are struggling to come to terms with the loss. As the grief reaches through the community, I want to thank everyone for the thoughtful, careful way that they are expressing their grief and reaching out to one another to offer comfort. This young man has left a deep impression on all those who have spoken to me about their relationship with him. His loss defies collective comprehension, but, with all in our community, I send to his family strength and love. Cowper Electorate: Australian Air Force Cadets 115 19:35 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper On Saturday, I had the honour of attending the 31st annual parade of 331 Squadron, Australian Air Force Cadets, in Coffs Harbour. The 331 Squadron has a proud history of turning out fine young Australians over many years. The cadet movement is not just a source of potential recruits to our Defence Force; it is a great youth development organisation. Cadet units build qualities that are of benefit in later life: service to the community, discipline, self-confidence and working as a team, to name just a few. On the parade ground, the cadets were a credit to their unit, watched by officers, proud parents and supporters. The reviewing officer, Group Captain James Gibson, was impressed by the precision of the parade, as were the audience. It was a credit to the unit staff, in particular Cadet Flight Lieutenant Deborah Hoiles, who, regrettably, was unable to attend due to family commitments. I would like to acknowledge parade commander Cadet Flight Sergeant Blake Hall and parade warrant officer Cadet Flight Sergeant Benjamin Ranford. The banner warrant officer was Cadet Sergeant Nicholas Winkler. The banner bearer was Cadet Sergeant Eden Millar-Waldock. The banner escorts were cadet corporals Emily White and Reece Rainbow. The A-Flight commander was Cadet Sergeant Keegan Ford, and the B-Flight commander was Cadet Corporal Daniel Alford. The cadets were kept in time not only by hours of drill and hard work but through the fine contribution made by the Coffs Coast Pipes and Drums, who are on hand at so many community events along the Coffs Coast. The 331 Squadron cadets routinely help out at a range of commemorations held in our region. In return, there were representatives from various ex-service groups in attendance, including the Australian National Servicemen's Association and RSL sub-branches from around the area. At the parade, Cadet of the Year for 2017 and Cadet of the Year for 2018 were announced. I would like to congratulate Cadet Sergeant Keegan Ford for being awarded Cadet of the Year for 2017 and Cadet Flight Sergeant Blake Hall for Cadet of the Year for 2018. All were impressed by the dedication and hard work of the staff and cadets of 331 Squadron. They are a credit to the long and proud history of 331. Northern Territory: Australian Electoral Commission 116 19:38 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari It's extremely important, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would agree, that all citizens get an equal opportunity to exercise their democratic right to vote. It's critical that the federal government, through the funding of the Australian Electoral Commission, enable the right to vote by compiling a complete and accurate voting roll. The voting roll must be assembled for all areas of every electorate so Australians all get an equal right to participate in elections, no matter who they are or where they live or what their circumstances are. It's especially important that Australians who live with a greater-than-average tyranny of distance or who live well below the poverty line or for whom English is a second or third language receive the resources to enable an equal and fair participation in the democratic processes. Previously in this place, I've expressed my concern at the effective closure of the AEC Darwin office, when it was reduced from 16 staff to three under a federal government restructure in 2017. The government cuts to the AEC included $1.5 million in 2017-18 and $8.4 million over the forward estimates. The staff that were cut from the office in Darwin included five from the enrolment branch and four in the Indigenous participation and voter education branch of the AEC in the Northern Territory. It's clear that, by cutting and underfunding the AEC, this government is depriving large numbers of Territorians of their right to vote. The data shows the impact of the federal government's neglect on the democratic rights of Territorians, especially Aboriginal people in remote communities. As at 30 September 2018 there were 69,825 persons enrolled to vote in Lingiari and 139,000 in both electorates in the Northern Territory. As at 30 October this year the AEC pointed out on its own website that there were 26,377 people who were not on the roll in the Northern Territory at all. This means that 84 per cent of Territorians are on the roll and 16 per cent are not. For the rest of Australia 96 per cent of people are on the roll and four per cent are not. In Lingiari is highly likely that the enrolment situation is even worse than for the NT as a whole. For a number of reasons, it's even more difficult to enrol to vote in remote communities. As well, there is no access to the AEC's direct enrolment program. The direct enrolment program is where Centrelink and motor registry lists are used by the AEC to put people on the roll unless they advise otherwise. Direct enrolment is the major reason why all urban areas in Australia, including urban areas in the Northern Territory, have over 96 per cent enrolment. Direct enrolment is a very successful and efficient program introduced by Labor, yet direct enrolment is not used by the AEC for at least 50,000 people in my electorate of Lingiari. Of the 26,377 people not enrolled, I estimate around 20,000 are in my electorate. Yet the federal government has cut and continues to underfund the AEC. Other data supports the federal government's neglect of democratic rights of Territorians, especially the rights of Aboriginal people in my electorate. In addition, in 2014 the AEC had already identified that 42 per cent of Indigenous people were not enrolled to vote. What can we conclude then from these cuts to the budget of the AEC in 2017 and cuts to their staffing at the electoral office in the Northern Territory? The only conclusion I can reach is it's a deliberate attempt to keep people off the roll rather than do the diligent thing and make sure that every Australian, regardless of where they live, has the opportunity to exercise their democratic right. In Lingiari there are some 50,000 voters or potential voters where direct enrolment is not used—that's a scandal—in Nhulunbuy, Jabiru and Tennant Creek, plus all the communities that are more remote. The federal government must do what it can. I ask that they urgently review this arrangement to ensure that direct enrolment is available to all Territorians. As we approach next year's election you would've thought that, given the desire to have people participate in the democratic process, this government would understand the impact of the cuts it has made to the Australian Electoral Commission and, therefore, as a direct result the impacts it's having on the rights of Northern Territory residents who would otherwise been on the roll to vote. It's an absolute bloody scandal. Pensions and Benefits 116 19:43 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to update the House on the progress of the cashless debit card trial in the Goldfields area of my electorate of O'Connor. On 7 November I hosted the , the Hon. Paul Fletcher, on a visit to the Goldfields to see for himself how the cashless debit card trial was progressing. First we flew into Leonora in the northern Goldfields. This is where the idea of introducing a cashless debit card trial was first conceived. A spate of suicides drove one of the elders to approach me for assistance. It was great to introduce the minister to some of the key community members who had been instrumental in its inception and success to date. I have to be honest, not everybody credits the card as a resounding success, but it was never portrayed as a silver bullet that would fix every problem in the community. Some Aboriginal elders suggested that participants were rorting the card and accessing grog, but overall the community sentiment was positive. Local medical services reported more voluntary presentations, with people taking an interest in their routine health care. The hospital reported seeing less alcohol related injuries and the Royal Flying Doctor Service call-outs were well down for alcohol induced incidents. The police supported these findings stating that crime statistics were down by 42 per cent, particularly for domestic violence and assaults. The minister chatted to local pharmacist John Coufos, who reported that, prior to the cashless debit card, people came into his pharmacy only for PBS medications but now he is selling more general products like baby care products, asthma spacers and other items. Next we went to Laverton, one of the most remote communities in the trial site. It is a model of community collaboration and cohesion. Aboriginal elders like Bruce Smith and Janice Scott work hand in glove with the local shire and service providers. The DSS have had a really positive presence, with local partners working on local solutions for local people. Laverton experienced an influx of people from outside the cashless debit card trial and had some social issues with out-of-towners. So they devised a community safety plan, which coincided with the introduction of the cashless debit card. This has seen crime figures reduce by around 37 per cent—although, in September, Laverton senior police sergeant Justin Tarasinski was quoted in The Kalgoorlie Miner as saying crime was down as much as 52 per cent on the same time last year. This Goldfields trial could not be more varied. The northern Goldfields has more Aboriginal participants and they make up a larger proportion of their communities. Their geographic and demographic isolation makes these positive outcomes absolutely compelling. In the city of Kalgoorlie-Boulder the ratio is reversed, with more non-Indigenous participants, and those on the card make up less than 10 per cent of the population. The positive outcomes are less obvious to the casual observer, and there are other factors in play such as the recent Operation Fortitude, a WA blitz on drugs and alcohol, and the recently introduced Kalgoorlie-Boulder ranger patrols. Even so, WA Police statistics for the September quarter reflected an increase in burglaries, assaults and domestic violence of 17 per cent in Kalgoorlie and 22 per cent in Boulder. Importantly, recent media reports of street fighting and domestic violence describe offenders as 'residing outside the cashless debit card trial'. The Shire of Coolgardie president, Mal Cullen, and Aboriginal elder and councillor Betty Logan are reporting real and sustained improvements in the quality of life of card trial participants in their community. Kids are going to school with food in their stomachs, parents are shopping for the necessity of life, and local IGA owner Patsy illustrated the real changes she is seeing in spending patterns in a letter that she penned to Minister Fletcher. Wrapping up our whirlwind tour, we consulted with the disability sector, where Minister Fletcher was impressed by the candour and experience of disability pension recipient Nicole. Nicole contacted me personally, distressed at social media reports that her card would not work for medical appointments and accommodation in Perth. I assured her that it would work anywhere that accepted a Visa debit card. It did, and she has been a firm supporter since. Only two weeks ago Minister Fletcher met again with Nicole at a cashless debit card round table where representatives from all three existing trial sites came together to share their experiences. Nicole recounted how she hated the concept of the card but she used it and she came to save more money than ever before, to the point where she could now afford to move out of home. Nicole spoke bravely of the vilification she had experienced personally and on social media since speaking out. Those from the existing trial sites of Ceduna, East Kimberley and the Goldfields echoed that it had been tough going in the early days but the eventual positive outcomes were now clear for all to see. Keith Pitt, the member for Hinkler, was there to experience for himself what the path ahead for Bundaberg and Hervey Bay might look like. Representatives from the Northern Territory shire of Barkly were also there listening to the feedback. I take this opportunity to encourage them to consider the cashless debit card as a tool to help them fight towards positive social outcomes for their community. I close by thanking all who met with Minister Fletcher across the Goldfields and at the recent round table. I commend them for their courage in supporting the cashless debit card trial. National Disability Insurance Scheme 117 19:48 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Today is the International Day of People with a Disability, and this evening I rise to speak on the state of the National Disability Insurance Scheme in 2018. The legislation for the National Disability Insurance Scheme was introduced with the nation's hope for a better way for people living with a disability behind it. Yet today, five years later, the NDIS is falling devastatingly short of the promises it was founded upon. I think back to the passionate, proud and driven sentiments of my colleagues in this place around the NDIS in 2013. I think back and contrast these to the sad realities of the NDIS for my constituents in Werriwa, who every day face navigating the scheme. I think back and wonder where we've gone wrong. We said that disability care would be here when you need it—election after election, decade after decade. The reality is that the NDIS is there for Australians only at an annual review date—if that. Many of many constituents have been left waiting for months for plan reviews, only to be told that, when they are finally assigned a planner within 100 days of an annual review, they must wait until this occurs for anything to change. We said that disability care provided support for certainty and provides choice and control to differently-abled Australians. The reality is that Australians with disability, and their carers, are left for months waiting for funding decisions from the NDIA. One of my constituents was left with a wheelchair he cannot use at home, because car modifications have been waiting months for approval. His family have resorted to community fundraising instead. Where is the 'choice and control' in this? We said that disability care will ensure people with disability will have the security and dignity that each Australian deserves. The reality is that the wait times of the NDIS do little to improve the security and dignity for vulnerable Australians. One of my constituents put in a request for an electric wheelchair in May. Her existing one was meant to be only temporary. It had a fabric back and was a manual, so she had to push herself off the wall to get around the house. She needed the wheelchair to be more independent and be able to go out. She can't walk, has kidney failure and is on dialysis several times a week. This constituent contacted us in September because there were still no updates from the NDIA. The wheelchair was ordered in mid-November—seven months later. We said that disability care would end the primitive time where people with disabilities and their carers need to shoulder the burden and fill in the gaps. In reality, disability care means disabled Australians and their carers must instead shoulder the burden of messy, complex bureaucracy that is difficult to navigate. The NDIA shrouds the positive measures of the NDIS plan in layers of forms, phone calls and plan approvals. A lot of policy around differently-abled Australians has historically looked at disability as a problem or a deficit that policy solutions could fix. The NDIS was meant to change this. The NDIS was introduced through a largely pro-disabled political consensus between the two parties. However, the policy has been implemented in a way that makes disability a problem to solve. The stories of my constituents make this clear. This needs to change. The NDIS must evolve as a tool to empower Australians with disabilities and address the structural inequalities faced by people with a disability. Last week, while I was standing out in the sun at a mobile office, a young woman stopped by. She came to tell me that, as a nurse and a social worker, she found the NDIS really difficult to get through, but she stopped to thank me because my office was able to help her navigate through the system. This shouldn't happen. It shouldn't be that they need the help of a local member to mitigate unreasonable waiting times. It should not happen that there are webs of bureaucracy. It will not happen in a scheme that is associated with a government that looks at it as welfare and administration rather than simplicity, choice and empowerment. Former Prime Minister and member for Werriwa, Gough Whitlam, once said: Australians should not have to live in doubt or anxiety lest injury or sickness reduce them to poverty. Let today, the International Day of People with a Disability, serve as a call to action. We must get the NDIS back on track as a tool that empowers differently-abled Australians to live the lives they want. Petrie Electorate 118 19:53 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie As a federal member for Petrie, my job when I come to this place is, of course, to represent the constituents, the 150,000 or so people, who live in my electorate. I've had a few people raise questions with me via social media, which I want to quickly address. Sandra Smith said, 'Please ensure our live export is exceptionally high.' I've had a number of people talk to me about live export. I have visited the cattle stations up in the Northern Territory and looked firsthand at the ships and how those farmers treat their cattle. People might not be aware that, in Australia, whether it's sheep or cattle, we're the only country in the world that actually has laws whereby our agriculture, when it is exported, has to be dealt with in a proper manner, in a professional manner and in a humane manner at the other end. If Australia got out of that export market, other countries would take its place and there would be no protections at all. So, in many ways, Australia's involvement in this industry raises the standard, but I'd say to Sandra: I do plan on visiting a live sheep ship soon and I'll report back to her once I've had a look at that. Joshua Allen wants to make sure higher education is affordable and asks why Queensland's unemployment rate one of the worst in the country. First of all, in relation to higher education, Joshua, the federal government currently pays 60 per cent of the bill. Australian taxpayers foot 60 per cent of every university degree and 40 per cent is paid for by the student. The student can either pay for that up-front or can HECS it and pay it back after they earn approximately $50,000 or above. I've got the new University of the Sunshine Coast being built in Petrie in the Moreton Bay region, which the federal government has put a lot of funding towards. That'll start in 2020. If people aren't able to afford to go straight up, they can HECS part of it and the federal government will pay the other 60 per cent. In relation to why the Queensland unemployment rate is the worst in the country, I could be really partisan and say that's because you've got a Labor state government in Queensland—and New South Wales has a Liberal government—but I won't pretend to do that. I think that's a question you'll have to put to the state Labor members in your area. All I can tell you is that the unemployment rate, federally, is five per cent, and it's not an accident; it's because the federal coalition government has had a plan for jobs and growth around ship manufacturing, free trade agreements and small and medium-sized tax cuts, and it's working well. June Uksi wants to ensure our borders are safe and wants to know what we're doing. As you know, June, we've stopped the boats. We've stopped children drowning at sea. We've got 2,000 children out of detention since I came into office. There are now something like 13 there. Also this week we're introducing the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018. Police currently can, if they have a warrant, go to Telstra and access people's text messages and phone records or intercept live calls, if they think there is terrorist activity or another serious offence going on. This new bill will allow our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to go to the companies that provide encrypted services on WhatsApp and other apps and via social media. If these companies are operating in Australia, they'll be captured by the legislation, which is really important as well. Jim Frew and Trish Lesina would like Australia to exit the Paris Agreement. We won't be doing that. I've spoken to the Prime Minister. We've signed the Paris Agreement. It's a 26 to 28 per cent emissions reduction target. The fact is that we will meet that target. It's a way of moving to renewable energy. We still have coal and gas and other forms of energy, which are important. Jim and Trish, this is in stark contrast to Labor's 45 per cent emissions reduction target—and we know that they haven't given up on a carbon tax, which will see electricity bills rise. We have also brought in legislation this week to keep energy costs under control, and we're seeing many energy companies reducing costs, including for those who are loyal customers to their electricity provider—in the past they haven't passed on discounts to you, but we're now seeing them pass on discounts to you. I'd say to people in my electorate, if you haven't checked with your energy provider, make sure you check with them that you're on the best deal. Now is the time to act: they are listening, because of the federal government legislation that we're implementing. House adjourned at 19:58 NOTICES 119 NOTICES

Monday, 3 December 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Laundy) took the chair at 10:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 120 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Goldstein Electorate: Rotary Clubs 120 10:30 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Since 1921, Australian Rotary Clubs have united men and women with a shared belief in securing a more inclusive society which promotes fellowship, integrity and goodwill. All of Australia's 30,000 Rotarians deserve recognition, including my mother. Today I would like to acknowledge some of the leaders of Goldstein's exceptional Rotary community. At the Sandringham Rotary Club, I would like to recognise the incredible efforts of outgoing board members President Bob Richards OAM and Vice-President Maria Hawley. Congratulations to Garry Thompson and Ian Wells, who were elected president and vice-president of the club in July. At Beaumaris Rotary, thank you to the outgoing executive, in particular President Chris D'arcy, Treasurer Richard Jones and Secretary James Glenwright. Congratulations to the new leadership, President Heather Chisholm, Treasurer Lynda Doutch and Secretary Roy Seager. At the Rotary Club of Glen Eira, I'd like to recognise the executive, President John Luscak, Treasurer Keith Faiman and Secretary Alan Samuel, and offer my congratulations to the new team, President Alan Samuel, President-elect Lili Teichman, Secretary Joan Luscak and Treasurer Geoff Asher. At the Bentleigh Moorabbin Central Rotary Club, thank you to the outgoing president, Peter O'Brien, and congratulations to President Ian Ballantine; Treasurer Ron Brownlees; the community chair, Joe Impi; the international chair, Linda O'Brien; and the vocational and youth chair, Peter Guttann. At Rotary Club of Hampton, thank you to the outgoing co-presidents, Jenifer Fox and Elizabeth Ware. Congratulations to President Stuart Le Gros, Treasurer Rosalind Bodley, Secretary Marie Arendsen and the membership officer, Christine Lindsey. Then, of course, the mighty Rotary Club of Brighton: thank you to the outgoing executive, President Damien Hellard, Treasurer Bill Harley and Secretary David Finley. Congratulations to President Norman Thomas, President-elect Geoff Bentley, Vice-President Barry Hickman, Treasurer Kien Teh and Secretary John Schmoll. Finally, at Brighton North Rotary, thank you so much to the outgoing team, comprising President William Heron, Treasurer Russell Brewer and Secretary Ross Rice. Congratulations to President Meg Ryan, President-elect John Blangiardo, Vice-President Linn Maskell, Treasurer Neil Graham and Secretary Cheryl Cox. Best wishes to all of the community organisations and the Rotary clubs that do so much on the ground, who work for, support and commit their services to our wonderful community, whether it's at the local farmers markets, the local Bunnings or wherever it is they do their good work. When you do what you do, it has an impact. It binds our community together. It's part of the social fabric. We're so proud of everything that you do. That's why you'll continue to have my support, and you're part of the reason I'm so proud to represent a community as wonderful as ours. Higher Education 120 10:33 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman We're reaching the end of the year now, we're in December, and that means at least two things are certain: it's sweltering hot in Brisbane and, of course, Queensland high school students are finishing up for the year. Year 12 students are finished up for good. Some may be heading into the workforce, others heading off to university or TAFE. Whatever their pathway, for most this is new and very uncharted territory. Whatever their path, what they do know is that, under this government, life is going to be a lot more difficult. I know for a fact that there are plenty of young adults in my community seeking to further their education at the local University of the Sunshine Coast, Caboolture campus. This government hasn't made life any easier for them though, having pushed through $2.2 billion worth of cuts to universities. While previous Labor governments fought to open the door for hundreds of thousands of students, nearly doubling university funding, the Liberals have slammed that door shut. It's estimated that around 10,000 people could miss out on a university place this year because of these cuts. Young people seeking to pursue TAFE or another form of skills based education haven't got it any easier either under this government. Since they were elected, the Liberals have cut more than $3 billion from TAFE, skills and apprenticeships. Prime Minister Morrison smiled through these cuts when he was Treasurer and, now that he's toppled the former PM for the top job, nothing much has changed. Australia has 140,000 fewer apprenticeships and traineeships than it did when this government was elected. For a country with a so-called skills shortage, this is absolutely disgraceful. We should be skilling up our local kids to take local jobs, not allowing employers to bring in a temporary overseas workforce when it just isn't necessary. For those students who are keen to enter into the workforce, we know just how important penalty rates are for young people. They rely upon them, in some cases just to get by. It is so often the case that young people have to work late hours, weekends and public holidays, and they deserve to be compensated for that inconvenience. But, under this government, their hard-earned penalty rates have been slashed. This is simply not fair. No matter what their pathway, under this government things are just getting worse for young Australians. To the young people of Australia who live in my community, who live in regional and rural areas and who live in big cities: Labor will stand up for you. We are reinvesting in universities and TAFE. We're even waiving the up-front fees of 100,000 TAFE places. We're reinstating your penalty rates. We're standing up for you so that you get a fair go. While this government is condescendingly acting like you shouldn't even have a voice, Labor will ensure that you have a platform. Logan City: Tourism 121 10:36 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's a terrific opportunity to speak this morning about the wonderful work that is being done in Logan to promote tourism. Indeed, it's a great honour to represent the people of Logan, a great multicultural city that I was very proud to grow up in. We've seen an enormous number of things happen over the last few years. Many in this chamber may not realise that Logan is Australia's eighth-largest city by population and attracts 1.4 million visitors each year. Ideally situated between Brisbane and the Gold Coast and spanning some 950 square kilometres, it encapsulates some of our country's most diverse natural assets, including the Logan and Albert rivers, Daisy Hill Conservation Park, Eagleby Wetlands and more than 1,100 other environmental and recreation parks. More importantly, Logan is home to some of the most resilient, hardworking and resourceful people. With access to the M1 gateway and Logan motorways and a population predicted to increase to almost 490,000 by 2036, it's no wonder that last year Logan attracted more than 160,000 visitors with tourism, sport and various events, bringing $347 million into our local economy. But, unfortunately, many people just dart down the M1 without much of a thought as to what Logan has to offer. As I said, it's a diverse city with industry and opportunity, a strong industrial and services economy and, increasingly, tourism. Tourism continues to mature in Logan as more visitors and travellers gain an appreciation of our unique offerings. Community events, such as Eats & Beats, the Beenleigh Show, the Queensland Pacific Island Cultural Carnival, Eagleby Festival, Loganlea Connect, the terrific Brigalow, Guanaba and Twin Rivers country music clubs and the never-ending array of quality productions at the Beenleigh Theatre Group. We are seeing more people than ever come to our local community. I was at the Beenleigh Theatre Group on the weekend and speaking to a couple of people who had actually never heard of the Beenleigh Theatre Group, had come along for the first time and were thoroughly impressed with the performance. We've also got great sporting talent in Cameron Smith, Corey Parker, Israel Folau and many others. There are great tourism destinations like the Beenleigh Rum Distillery, the oldest operating facility in Australia, and the Beenleigh Historical Village, which aims to preserve the rich history of the Beenleigh area. Across some 637 sports, arts and community events held in Logan last year, 213 of them generated day trips and overnight visitations. Logan is a great city that has tremendous potential, and I congratulate everybody involved in our tourism industry. Madden, Mr Shane 121 10:39 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Shane Madden was one of Canberra's finest lawyers. He was part of the senior leadership team when the ACT Department of Public Prosecutions was formed under Ken Crispin in 1991. ACT Bar Association President Steve Whybrow said: Shane was a fine trial advocate whose dark emerald robes and pinstripe pants were a defining sartorial feature. He served as a magistrate from 1996 until 2009. He was the coroner who conducted the 118-day inquest into the tragic death of schoolgirl Katie Bender, who was killed in 1997 by the implosion of the Royal Canberra Hospital. It has been commented that his conduct throughout the trial demonstrated his humanity and decency. He was the ACT's first Children's Court Magistrate, serving from 1999 with compassion and care. I came to know Shane Madden through my friend David Madden, his son. Shane always struck me as gentle and generous, and never shy about coming forward with his views about politics in Canberra, as a long-time resident of the north side. In giving the eulogy for his father at the Sacred Heart parish in Moruya on Saturday, David spoke about Shane's commitment to service, saying, 'Service was at the heart of Dad's life.' Shane Madden was a life member of the ACT Brumbies. He was an ACT rugby referee in more than 300 games. He helped out at Sacred Heart church Moruya, the Broulee surf club and Vinnies; by reading to kids at Broulee primary school; and through the Dolphins Rugby Union Club. David said: 'I can remember as a child wandering into the kitchen late on Sunday nights before Dad had a trial and seeing him once again poring over evidence, double- and triple-checking his notes, making sure he did the best job he possibly could. Dad brought that commitment to everything he did, whether it was hearing a big case, giving a speech at the Rotary Club of Moruya or caring for his sister, who struggled with mental illness her whole life. Dad did things properly.' David said one of his favourite photos of his dad was taken at Bondi Beach, by the mural representing the struggle for Indigenous rights, where Shane explained to his grandson Alexander about Vincent Lingiari, Faith Bandler and Eddie Mabo—what these champions of justice fought for and why it matters. Those in Canberra were lucky to have benefited from Shane's service. My heart goes out to his widow, Katie, his wife of 47 years; to his children, David, Peter and Philip; to his children-in-law, Andrea, Nicole and Amy; and to his grandchildren, Kahlea, Isabelle, Jacinta, Raphael, Jessica, Elianna, Stephanie, Alexander, William and Georgina. Road Safety 122 10:42 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes It is only a few weeks out from Christmas, one of the most joyous times of the year, when we all enjoy family, friends, good food and a few drinks. This is also one of the most dangerous times of the year to be on the road. I call on all Australians, not just in my electorate but across the nation, to pay extra attention and to take extra care when they are driving on our roads this Christmas time. Last year, 1,225 Australians died on our roads. In addition, an extra 10,000 who were injured in crashes were taken to hospital. All up, since the end of the Second World War, 150,000 Australians have lost their lives on our roads. That's 50 per cent more than the number of Australians who were killed in World War I and World War II combined. We have an obligation as members of this parliament to do everything that we can to ensure that the road toll continues to come down. And it has come down. In 1970, over 3,700 Australians lost their lives—in a single year. That toll's come down because of seatbelts, because of road safety programs and, mainly, because of improved technologies in motor cars. The statistics are clear: if you are driving a late model car, a car that is less than five years old, compared to a car that was made pre the year 2000, you are two to three times less likely to be involved in a fatal accident. Therefore, as parliamentarians we should be doing everything we possibly can to make it as easy as we can for citizens to get late model cars. I think it is immoral that we continue to charge import duties on late model cars that come into this country. We currently still have a five per cent import duty on cars from Europe. If we were to reduce that, get the age of our fleet in this country down and give people the opportunity to have a late model car—as well as continuing to invest in roads—we would make positive steps towards reducing the road toll, and that is something I hope this parliament considers. Our road toll is unacceptable. We must do more to get it down. Vocational Education and Training 122 10:45 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta Australia has been slipping down the OECD leaderboard in a few areas lately—on internet speed and corruption, we are dropping down bit by bit—but there is one index where we've already made it right to the bottom, to dead last. That's the leaderboard that ranks our capacity to engage in global value chains. As supply chains fragment more and more, and manufacturers start drawing their components from around the world, smart countries are making sure that their businesses, both large and small, can be part of that, because already 70 per cent of global trade is in intermediate goods and services and capital goods, and that is continuing to grow. And us? Well, we rank worst among the OECD countries in terms of our capacity to exploit that change. There are some obvious causes. The deliberate destruction of the car industry is one, but so is the decimation of Australia's once-proud VET system. The shambolic Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government have had five years to fix the VET system and prepare our nation for this global trend, but what did they do instead? What they always do—they cut it. They ripped $3 billion from training and apprenticeships. Dodgy training providers continue to go bust. Thousands of students have debts for courses they haven't done and in many cases didn't know they were enrolled in. Employers are reporting growing skill shortages. We have 140,000 fewer apprenticeships. Student enrolments in TAFE are down nearly 25 per cent. Labor announced its TAFE policy back in February, including the waiving of up-front fees for 100,000 TAFE students, $100 million for revitalising campuses across Australia and, importantly, a major review of the TAFE, VET and post-secondary education system, the first review of vocational education and training in more than 40 years. It is long overdue. What happened? Two things. Firstly, the Prime Minister made a number of astonishing claims, including saying that Australia's VET system is better than the German model, which is the global benchmark. It might have been once, but it certainly isn't now, after five years of this short-sighted government. Then the Prime Minister announced his own review of TAFE. Not agreeing with himself, he decided to review TAFE. This is where it gets really weird. He announced a review last week, on Wednesday, 28 November. Remember that date, because this major review will be accepting submissions until 25 January—for two months, over the Christmas break. What kinds of submissions are they going to get? To make matters worse, there was no consultation on the terms of reference, and he has appointed the conservative New Zealand minister who presided over the decimation of regional training centres in New Zealand and a $3 billion black hole in funding to do the review—over a two-month period over Christmas! We know there's an election coming up, so the only way this makes any sense at all is as an excuse to pork-barrel. We need a government that cares about TAFE because of what it does for our population and our business, not a government that discovers TAFE when it thinks it can use a bit of pork-barrelling to win an election. Queensland: Bushfires 123 10:48 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman Yesterday, as thousands enjoyed A Day on the Green at Sirromet, in my electorate, a pall of bushfire smoke covered the city, reminding us of just one of 115 bushfires that are raging at the moment across Queensland. North Stradbroke Island is obviously quite isolated and quite challenging. We have firefighters coming from all over the country, from as far as South Australia, endeavouring to bring this bushfire under control. Helicopters continue to water-bomb some of the affected areas. The three tiny townships are surrounded by bushland and quite isolated from each other, connected by just a single-lane road that can easily be cut. We've got peat swamps that are burning in the centre of the island. Campers are being asked to move to safer locations. Let's remember, of course, that on an island like that the only source of current economy is tourism, so this presents a real blow to business owners as well as a personal safety element for those who are residing there and those who are holidaying and don't know the evacuation routes to follow. There have been meetings for those affected by the fire on North Stradbroke Island as well as Russell and Macleay Islands, the great Southern Moreton Bay Islands. Russell Island in particular—that eight-kilometre long, very flat island at the base of Moreton Bay—is faced with telecommunications issues too, because a bushfire can knock out fixed lines; it can knock out a wireless repeater station and Russell Island only has the one tower. So there is a critical need for a southern Russell Island tower so that people can use a mobile phone or receive information by emergency SMS alerts when necessary. The reality is that people on Russell Island, living just 40 kilometres from a CBD centre, are often unable to get a mobile line and reception. That shows how remote these islands are, even though we see on a map that they're not that far from the mainland. I want to thank everyone involved in this response. It's not just the people on the frontline fighting the fires—there are literally hundreds of people behind them making that possible. Fighting bushfire is incredibly complex. As Australians, we live in a nation where even in the nation's capital we've been affected by bushfires. It's never far from anyone's mind. We are banking on an improvement in the weather that may come midweek. At the moment, the winds are looking more concerning, with changes due tomorrow that may make fighting this bushfire even worse. Stradbroke Island frames our horizon. In the city where I live, it's what we see when we look to the sea. We don't want to see that island completely ravaged by bushfires. It has been now twice in the last 10 years. North Stradbroke Island is an area with huge tourism potential. The bushfires make that impossible. It's a fragile local ecology which we want to protect, and it of course has some great assets that draw Queensland tourism and international tourism to our city. It's the lifeblood of tourism and new money to my city, because people who go to the island travel through Cleveland and Capalaba. Thank you to the firefighters involved. Morrison Government 123 10:51 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert 'Tis that time of year again when I tell a Christmas tale; About the LNP's turmoils, desperation 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 sat in his ivory tower; Counting his dollars with an unyielding power. The Australian people would beg for some investment in jobs, health, action on energy and education; But Treasurer Morrison would always refuse and give nothing but cuts and privatisation! Treasurer Morrison has been the architect of every single cut; For he has put my home town, Townsville, in its current rut. Just like the Ebenezer Scrooge's worker Fred, my home 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 now, due to no action on energy, local businesses are now shut. There are people choosing between medical visits and paying electricity bills; And our pensioners cannot afford to pay for their pills! Prime Minister Morrison has made massive cuts to education and health; All whilst trying to privatise Medicare by stealth. Townsville's unemployment under Prime Minister Morrison has almost doubled; A fact that doesn't 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's jobs, workers and families—keeping us all down. Just like the plot out of the Charles Dickens story; Ghosts from the LNP past are coming out of purgatory. Former Prime Minister Abbott has risen—the ghost of LNP past; He's back to wreak havoc—and fast! Then there is former Prime Minister Turnbull who is the LNP's ghost of present; With his anger and disgust for the LNP—I share his sentiment. For the ghost of present, Prime Minister Turnbull, is ringing bells, loudly and true; That led to the landslide victory in Victoria, leaving the LNP black and blue. All of these ghosts are putting their own self-interest first; At the expense of regional workers, and only making things worse. The ghost of yet-to-come has not arrived yet; But allow me to guess and make $100 bet. 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, the ghosts who have received the brunt of Prime Minister Morrison's cuts; Who have received nothing from the LNP government but peanuts; They will ensure that every one of their votes count; By voting out Prime Minister Morrison and holding him to account. For Townsville will remember all of the cuts to jobs and to health; And how our taxpayer dollars go to those with incredible wealth. At the next election, Prime Minister Morrison will have hard lessons to learn; About how he can't create Townsville's largest economic downturn. And when you are the person responsible for huge job loss; The people of Townsville are going to give you the toss! Queensland Fires 124 10:54 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia As the whole country would be aware, Queenslanders have been fighting raging bushfires across the state this past week. Many from my electorate of Capricornia have been courageously fighting fires for a week or more. Finch Hatton, Dalrymple Heights, Eungella, Campwin Beach, Sarina Beach, Carmila, Blue Mountain, Sarina Range and The Caves were all affected, and thousands of residents were evacuated. Some residents in Eungella were even evacuated by helicopter to safety. On the edge of my electorate and that of the member for Flynn lie the townships of Kabra and Gracemere. The residents of these towns were saved by an inch. My heart goes out to young George Bird's family, friends and the Rolleston community after he died in an accident while trying to put in a fire break. My heart also goes out to all of those who have lost their homes, their sheds and their farms. I believe I speak for everyone in this place when I say: we are thinking of you, and you have this government's full support in recovering. Our hats go off to the Queensland Fire and Emergency Services crews, the volunteers of the rural fire service, the police, ambulance, SES volunteers and residents working around the clock fighting these fires. One volunteer, in particular, sticks in my mind. Joan Lennox has been at Eungella, tirelessly cooking her heart out to keep the firefighting workforce fed. As the old saying goes, an army marches on its stomach and, while there are no machine guns or hand grenades involved, the operation of fighting fires is not that far removed from a military one. Every volunteer, regardless of their role, is vital to the whole operation. The effort of Joan and her team is paramount to the success of the campaign, and she is battling fatigue just like the rest of them. Credit too must go to Mackay, Isaac, Rockhampton and Livingstone councils for their well-managed disaster plans. We have seen more evacuations than I think I can ever remember seeing, and I'm quite sure this has led to minimal damage being caused by what have been ferocious fire storms. The fight is not yet over though: Queensland is still burning, and all areas are on high alert with their fire plans. The heatwave has not ended, and the same conditions that have aided the fires to date are set to continue. As I travel around affected areas, the communities amaze me with their generosity and tireless assistance. Many local businesses are rallying to provide food and water to the rescue crews. Mackay Regional Council even had to issue an announcement requesting people stop donating supplies to emergency services and the evacuation centres as they were experiencing a surplus of supplies. I am enormously proud to be the federal member for these communities who in hardship rally and fight. While the fight is not over, I know that these small communities will grow stronger and, in true Australian spirit, get on with it until at last the fire is beaten. Centenary of the Armistice, Sir John Monash 125 10:57 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham It was an honour and privilege for me to present to the Clayton RSL and Remembrance Space, just down the road from my office, on 11 November to mark the 100th anniversary of the Armistice. Every year Australians reflect on the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in World War I. The scale of human loss in that war is unfathomable. With a population of less than five million at the time in Australia, approximately 400,000 Australians enlisted. Of those 400,000, more than 60,000 were killed, with 46,000 of those dying on the Western Front. The RSLs and Rotary clubs in my electorate have taught me a great deal about the legendary and remarkable service of Sir John Monash. I want to say some words today to express my very strong support for the posthumous promotion of Sir John Monash to field marshal. I am not one for hagiography but, doing the proper research into the story of Sir John Monash has confirmed to me that he was an extraordinary man—the sort of leader who perhaps we have one of, maybe two, per generation. Sir John Monash was and is recognised as having been one of the most effective allied generals in the First World War and the most respected commander in Australia's history so far. In May 1918, Monash was appointed commander of the Australian forces and, in that year, he led attacks that had a significant impact on the outcome of that war. It's extraordinary to think in today's times that this one person, with his incredible genius, lateral thinking and ability to see the big picture, was able to do so much to save so many Australians' lives and to push that war effort so far forward. One of the incidents that's often cited is the Battle of Hamel on 4 July 1918, when Monash demonstrated his genius. His skilful planning and astute tactics helped Australian and American troops capture this town from the Germans in just two hours. It's widely believed that many thousands of lives could have been lost if they hadn't conducted that attack under his guidance. A month later, on 12 August 1918, Monash was knighted on a battlefield in France by King George V in recognition of his service to our nation. As you well know, Deputy Speaker Laundy, Monash then returned to Australia to begin what, for anyone, would have been an extraordinary career on its own, doing some remarkable things for the state of Victoria, including the establishment of the Shrine of Remembrance and being the head of the state's Electricity Commission and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne. Had Monash been promoted to general prior to July 1919, there would have been a reasonable chance that King George V would have promoted him to field marshal. Indeed, Prime Minister James Scullin was publicly supportive of this and was going to do so by November 1929. It didn't happen. There's a lot more to say about this extraordinary man, but can I say, as a Victorian and an Australian, it is time to give appropriate recognition to Sir John Monash. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 126 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Early Childhood Education: Preschool and Kindergarten Funding 126 11:00 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I move: That this House: (1)   acknowledges that: (a)   90 per cent of the brain develops before the age of five; (b)   nearly one in four Australian children—22 per cent—start school without the foundational skills to be successful learners; and (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; (2)   agrees that: (a)   according to the Lifting our Game 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 (b)   age appropriate early learning programs have been proven to have a positive impact on children's outcomes through school; (3)   notes that: (a)   the Government has left parents and providers in limbo with its refusal to provide funding certainty; (b)   without ongoing funding to four year old preschool/kindy, providers are unable to plan ahead; (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 (d)   the Government's lack of commitment has left us falling behind other OECD countries in early education; and (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. I'm very pleased to be moving this motion in the House on early-learning funding. This is a critical issue, with massive impacts for our children and for the health and wellbeing of our communities and the broader economy. Despite what some on the government benches fervently believe, where you end up in life isn't just the result of hard work; a lot of it has to do with where you start, including where you were born, your social and economic environment and the dynamics of your family life. The social determinants of life outcomes are very real. The experiences we have in our early years have a profound impact on the course our lives will take. Kids whose childhood is marred by family breakdown, poverty, domestic violence or neglect have a dramatically increased risk of long-term disadvantage. Close to one in four Australian kids start school unequipped for successful learning. But there is a way to improve life outcomes—in fact, it's a well-known pathway, and it's called education. Education can help kids map a path out of disadvantage and give them the best chance of achieving their full potential. Ninety per cent of a child's brain development happens in the first five years, so it's not surprising that children who access quality early-childhood education go on to achieve better results throughout school. The former Labor government's preschool program has been a great success, with more than 90 per cent of four-year-olds enrolled. But the number of three-year-olds in early childhood education is still way below the OECD average. That's why Labor has committed to extending funding to provide 15 hours of subsidised preschool for three-year-olds as well. This will create a quality two-year program to support the most important years of a child's development. This is no trivial thing. In fact, it is the biggest investment in early childhood education in Australia's history, and it is set to help some 700,000 children. In my electorate of Newcastle alone, I'm pleased to say that close to 2,000 three-year-olds will benefit. This plan is good for children. It's good for families managing cost-of-living pressures. And it's good for the economy. Indeed, a recent EU study found that every dollar spent on early childhood education for three-year-olds returns $4 to the economy. Other countries, like the UK, New Zealand, France, Ireland and China, understand this and have already expanded their early-childhood programs to include three-year-olds. It is time for Australia to catch up. Regrettably, we have a government that fundamentally fails to understand the critical importance of education. It's a government that has already savagely cut funding from schools, TAFEs and universities, while backing in exorbitant tax breaks for property investors. It's a government that spends billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthy rather than investing in the future of our children. Now it's a government that is prepared to leave parents hanging in limbo, with their failure to extend preschool funding for the four-year-olds beyond the next school year. So, while Labor has committed to funding a world-class two-year preschool program for three-year-olds and four-year-olds, this government is too busy fighting its own civil war to ensure funding for this program next year. The former education minister announced the agreement on rollover funding back in February, so why are we still here, eight months later? What's worse is that, when the officials were specifically asked during Senate estimates if the government will continue to fund preschools at the current levels, senators were simply told: 'That's a matter for government.' The fact that this government's own department is unable to confirm whether the government will continue to support this critical investment in education, one month out from the new year, is truly appalling. The government's failure to confirm the funding demonstrates enormous disrespect for our children, for their families and for the early-childhood-education providers alike. This chaotic Morrison government needs to stop focusing on itself and get that agreement signed to guarantee preschool funding for four-year-olds. But I would also call on the government to match Labor's commitment to provide universal access to preschool for three-year-olds so we can give every Australian child the opportunity to have the very best start in life. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 Is the motion seconded? Ms Ryan 249224 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:06 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley Labor, through this motion, want to talk about their report card on education. So let's talk about it. In 2010 they promised Australians they would build 260 childcare centres to make child care more accessible. Do you know how many they delivered? A measly 38—a clear broken promise to families. In one year alone they tried to rip out over $2.8 billion from higher education as well, claiming they were attempting to achieve a surplus. Let me tell you, you can't achieve a surplus when you're about to add hundreds of millions of dollars to the tax bill, which will in turn harm the economy and revenue coming into government coffers. We all know that, when the Leader of the Opposition makes a promise, someone else has to pay for it, and it's not him. It's hardworking Australians who will foot the bill, though higher taxes, just like with Labor's disgusting raid on retirees' savings. In that instance, we have another half-baked policy that people will have to pay for. Labor's latest preschool policy also doesn't add up, which is a common occurrence. Labor's Early Years Quality Fund has been described as a deeply flawed and inequitable policy that was used as a front to blatantly boost union membership in the childcare sector. The PwC report on this clearly shows that Labor's Early Years Quality Fund was never going to achieve its claimed objectives. Our government has instead guaranteed preschool funding, with an extra $440 million, while we work with states and territories to improve preschool attendance rates for disadvantaged and Indigenous children through our next funding round. Where are Labor on this issue? Despite the opposition, our government's landmark childcare reforms also came into effect this year and are delivering more support for more families and children to get access to the support and early learning they need. The coalition is providing record funding for child care and, despite the rubbish from those opposite, the coalition has guaranteed funding for four-year-old child care and child care more generally, as well as giving 348,000 children access to 15 hours of early learning per year. Over the course of the next four years, childcare funding will also grow from $8.34 billion a year to $9.88 billion a year in 2021-22, a total of $36.6 billion over the next four years. Our government's reforms to the childcare subsidy are also the most significant reforms to the early education and childcare system in 40 years. This new childcare package is providing more access to subsidised child care to more families as well as greater financial support to the families who earn the least, with subsidies of up to 85 per cent. Our new child subsidy had also driven down out-of-pocket costs for parents. For example, ABS's September CPI data saw an 11.8 per cent decrease in out-of-pocket childcare costs. In addition to this, the Liberal-National government is fully funding the Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority, at around $13.5 million a year for two years until 30 June 2020, so that it can continue to assist all governments and the sector to produce quality outcomes for children. This government is working with providers who have raised issues to address them as they arise. Around one million Australian families who are balancing work and parental responsibilities are benefitting from the package. We are committed to providing quality and affordable child care and we are delivering on that. We will continue to negotiate for further funding and further assurances around preschool attendance rates for disadvantaged and Indigenous children through our next funding round for kinder. We are committed to quality and we are committed to affordable child care and to funding the 15 hours of kinder, giving children access to early learning. Our commitment is one I'm personally supportive of, having raised this in my maiden speech and having a three-year-old who will be going to four-year-old kinder next year. Labor, in comparison, have made many promises before. They promised to make child care more affordable, but, by the time they left office in 2013, they'd increased childcare fees by 53 per cent—an extra $73 a week in fees for the average family; that's $3,500 a year for families. What makes anyone think they won't do it again if they get back into government? 11:11 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I'm pleased to rise on this private member's motion by the member for Newcastle today. Obviously, as my colleagues in the chamber understand, education is a passion of mine, not just because of the outcomes but because of the levels of engagement in education and the translation into community development in electorates like mine, which are growing so quickly. People come from all over Australia and all over the world, many with young families. I note that the contribution the member for Dunkley just made confirmed to me the government's complete lack of understanding of the importance of education—their lack of willingness to prioritise early learning and their lack of ability to say the phrases 'early learning' or 'early education'. It has been the saddest thing for me to note in this parliament, in my five years here, that every time I hear a government member speak they cannot bring themselves to say 'child care' or 'early education'. They see this as a childcare service and completely lack understanding of the importance of education for three- and four-year-olds. This government needs to very quickly commit to funding for four-year-old preschool, early learning and 15 hours universal access beyond 2019. They seem to not understand that, without certainty, the sector cannot plan, cannot train staff and cannot act to retain staff. This causes a funding cliff or fear of a funding cliff that disrupts early education. In an area like mine, it is critical. My local government is still involved in early education through kindergarten programs. Some are the traditional three sessions a week and others provide a long-day-care model, but, critically, with a trained and qualified kindergarten teacher in charge of those programs. It is critical in my electorate where, three years ago, up to 30 per cent of four-year-olds were not accessing education. It is critical. We have families from non-English-speaking backgrounds and families with crippling disadvantage. It is critical that those children are given an opportunity to learn through play based learning programs and develop positive and adaptive behaviours, as well as the social skills and problem-solving skills that they need once they hit a classroom. Ninety per cent of a child's learning capacity is developed in the first five years, so Labor's announcement around four-year-old kinder, which gives certainty to the sector nationwide, is absolutely critical. I call on the government to match that and put it in the budget. If it's not in the budget then it's not being planned for. It needs to be budgeted for now. Further, I call on them to match our commitment to 15 hours of universal access to three-year-old kinder. In my region, the sector needs that planning certainty into the future in order to develop and do the capital expenditure works that are required and to ensure that we have enough physical environments to make sure that kids get the opportunities. It is an incredibly important thing that we speak of today. There are 10,000 three- and four-year-olds in the electorate of Lalor—5,000 four-year-olds, as we speak. The electorate of Lalor would be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Labor policy going forward and is the community that is hurt the most by this government's lack of willingness to provide the certainty for even four-year-old kindergarten and early learning. So I again call on this government: please, get your priorities right around what supports families. I want to conclude by saying that for five years now I have stood here and I have listened to speaker after speaker of those opposite fail to mention early learning. But more, what I hear from those opposite is a lack of understanding of poverty; a lack of understanding of what it is like to live in a family that lives day to day and week to week, where any bump in the road, any unexpected bill, can throw a family into chaos. I want those opposite to think about three-year-olds and four-year-olds who find themselves living in those circumstances and how important it is for those children to have stability in their lives, and stability often provided by early learning and provided by our qualified and highly-skilled early childhood education teachers. 11:16 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman It is great to have the opportunity to talk about this incredibly important issue of early education. It is always entertaining to listen to privileged people trying to give each other lectures on what it is like to be poor, isn't it? It's fascinating! But I'm always happy to cop it if it leads to better child and early education. We have a friendship group for early education that is very active in this building—the member for Ballarat is my co-convener—and we have these discussions very regularly. There is no doubt that Australia has an almost unique model of service provision, with our predominantly private early education provision. Then, of course, overlaying that, we have preschool and C&K services. Getting them to work when run by two levels of government is challenging but not impossible. We know that, for four-year-olds, we already have fairly low levels of engagement in preschool, and that needs to be improved. I recognise the former Labor government for the quality standards that they put in place, which, though challenging, have been met by the sector with an overwhelmingly positive response, and we are now seeing real changes with the nature of the curricula materials. We know that you have to start early. We have some of the best products in the world, like 3P Learning's Matheletics and Reading Eggs, providing educational opportunities for children at home to be doing the very basics in literacy and numeracy so that they get the start they need. But let's talk about where the speedbumps are—because it is not just that one side of politics has all the problems and the other side of politics does all the hectoring; it's actually both sides of politics trying to sort out this area. The first one is privacy and data concerns, where schools can't work with early educators to identify kids at risk and start putting those services in place before these kids turn up in prep and don't know which end of the pencil to hold. We need schools to be able to visit early education centres in their areas and be able to say, 'Can I come and meet some of these children and let's work out a way of mapping it forward?' There's a massive number of services available internationally—coming out of the US predominantly—to benchmark where children are sitting, where their domains are that are weakest, and what we need to do to get them school ready. No-one is going to disagree on that; that's important. But what is more interesting is that Australia is a unique case because of the nature of our child-care mix in this country. Predominantly, when we look at the evidence of three-year-olds having universal access to preschool, in the context of four-year-olds already not taking it up, the question is: how far are we pushing the economics moving down to three-year-olds attending preschool? The data mostly comes from Europe. It is thanks to diligent work by the OECD. When they looked at PISA results for students in primary school, they found that they were able to map back and see definitive benefits in European economies if they went to preschool—and that is quite legitimate. They had a certain number of years of preschool prior to starting school. The problem is that that data doesn't reflect itself in Australia, and there are a number of reasons that that could be the case. We are talking about a 30 PISA point benefit to children attending preschool. It almost seems like you can't argue against it. But there is one problem: most economies don't have an extremely high acuity measure of socioeconomic status for children who are attending preschool. Australia does; we are lucky to have the ICSEA score, which uses the household's level of income, their highest level of education, indigeneity, remote and non-English speaking background to map out exactly what communities these children come from who do and don't attend preschool. There's no point getting into a detailed debate on that data, but, when you control for socioeconomics, the preschool benefit all but vanishes. There are plenty of wealthy, successful families accessing preschool and self-evidently doing better. When you come to Australia, the whole benefit of four-year-old preschool, as mapped by OECD, is a humble seven points. When they adjusted it for socioeconomics, it fell to just one point benefit. This is in the realm of no impact whatsoever doing an additional year's preschool. And the reason? Because the people who attend early education are already doing well enough at home, to the point that it actually doesn't matter if they're there or not. The group we must focus on is the lowest quintile that doesn't attend child care in this country. In parts of Scandinavia everyone, holus-bolus, goes into early education and they're all there. But in Australia, we have the unemployed household, we have the group where no-one works, no-one intergenerationally ever has worked, and these people aren't taking up child care for their own reasons. And they won't take up preschool unless we can find a way around that. Australia's problem is the non-working household. We are one of four countries—we're level with New Zealand, the UK and Ireland—to have the highest proportions of those in the world, and those four countries are going to get the least benefit of having universal preschool, because the kids who need to be there simply do not turn up. Now it's not a reason not to do it, but it's a reason to get four-year-olds in there first; it's a reason to acknowledge that they need to be identifying those communities and those families most at risk and finding a way to get them there. The coalition did that with 12 hours free child care—I'm glad they have—and that's the way forward: working with that lowest quintile. 11:21 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I take great pleasure in rising today to speak to the motion moved by my good friend and colleague the member for Newcastle. I'm absolutely delighted also to be speaking after the member for Lalor and to be followed by the member for Lingiari, all of whom have fantastic skills in the education field and great knowledge about what's best for Australian children, particularly in terms of early childhood education. Like the member for Newcastle and all of my other Labor colleagues, I'm supporting a proposal to extend preschool access for young children. Labor's plan, which we will be taking to the next election, is good for the children of Australia, good for the children of Macarthur, good for parents and good for the economy. I would also like to acknowledge the help, in writing this speech, of my chief of staff, Mr Brydan Toner, an ex-school captain of Nowra boys high school and, at present, doing a part-time degree in education. It shouldn't take a paediatrician to tell the government why they should support Labor's commitment and properly fund preschool for four-year-olds. But, alas, here I am, trying to tell the government what to do. As a medical student—and it's been quite a long time since I was a medical student—I did a thesis with the then professor of paediatrics, Thomas Stapleton, at the Children's Hospital in Camperdown about early childhood brain development and literacy. Those opposite should know almost 90 per cent of a child's brain development and literacy skills develop before they reach the age of five. It's also worth noting that the importance of a child having access to a quality preschool or early childhood education is reflected in good school data now, which demonstrates how important this is. Studies have shown that children who access quality early childhood education achieve far better test results in NAPLAN testing throughout their schooling. Shamefully, nearly 25 per cent of young Australians begin their schooling journey without having grasped those fundamental skills of literacy, which are so essential to their becoming successful learners. Indeed, I saw many of those children in my practice as a paediatrician. Unfortunately, I saw many of those children start school without adequate literacy, and then learnt not to like school, developed behavioural problems and, unfortunately, did not complete their education. One in four children starting school with poor literacy is a shamefully high percentage of the population in a developed country like Australia. These are the children who are missing out on access to an early childhood education. They come from disadvantaged backgrounds and would benefit immensely from access to early childhood education at an early age. Access to an early childhood education is particularly vital in closing the disadvantage gap before a child starts school. The team that I am proud to be a part of heading into the next election has a plan that will see around 340,000 three-year-olds and a similar number of four-year-olds able to access preschool every year. Not only as a paediatrician but as a father and grandfather and as the member for Macarthur, I cannot comprehend the government's attitude towards education and, in particular, funding for early childhood education. Undeniably, those opposite have continually denied certainty for funding of early childhood education. In Macarthur, their failure to extend funding for four-year-olds to attend preschool beyond the next year has left 2,364 Macarthur children in limbo. We on this side of the chamber know that one of the biggest barriers that families face in regard to accessing early childhood education is the cost. I'm determined to expand access to preschool and preschool education so parents can balance family and work and so we can reduce the cost of child care for families with children already in education. I must also say that the government's failure to provide ongoing commitment for the funding of early education isn't just bad for the families; it's also bad for business—and they love talking about business. Those opposite come in here and pretend they're the party of small business, yet the proof's in the pudding. Through the failure of the coalition to provide a commitment for ongoing funding to early childhood education providers, people have been unable to plan ahead. Again, I assure the Chamber that this is a big issue for many of the preschools in my community—small businesses which greatly contribute to Macarthur. This is an investment in our children and in our futures. Like the member for Newcastle, I urge the government to come to the table and properly fund four-year-old, early childhood education and extend this to three-year-olds. 11:26 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari Can I thank the member for Macarthur for his informed comments. As someone who, unlike most of us in this place, you could regard as an expert in this field, I think we ought to take a great deal more notice of him than others do in this place. That includes the government. I want to thank the member for Newcastle and also the member for Lalor for their contributions. I welcome this opportunity to discuss early childhood development and education. As we've heard, Labor this year announced it will introduce a new two-year national preschool and kindy program, guaranteeing around 700,000 children a year will be able to access subsidised preschool. This is the biggest-ever investment in early childhood education in Australia. For the first time, every three-year-old in Australia will be able to access 15 hours of subsidised early childhood education so they can get the best start in learning. I want to compliment the member for Macarthur for the erudite way in which he explained the importance of this in childhood development. It seems to me that we ought to all read his thesis so we too can be informed about this issue of early brain development and learning. I say this from someone who effectively lives in a remote part of Australia but whose electorate covers 1.4 million square kilometres and 300-odd communities. A very large proportion of the people—42 per cent of that population—are Aboriginal people living in some of the most appalling circumstances in the country, who need the access that these funds will provide, hitherto not available to them because of the neglect of this government. It's worth pointing out that, when last in government, the Labor Party put in place 38 child and family centres around the country. These were aimed at early childhood development, to look at making sure that young people got access to preschool—Families as First Teachers and a whole host of other programs. Needless to say, when Mr Abbott became the prime minister, they all went. That's an indictment, as is the government's failure to currently properly fund preschool education for four-year-olds, let alone three-year-olds. It seems to me that we have a real problem in this country if we can't, across the parliament, accept the need for addressing these issues—to deal with early childhood education—given what we know of the way in which it affects people's lives in the longer term: their capacity to acquire new information and knowledge and their capacity to learn and understand. The member for Macarthur and I, along with a number of others in this place, have pointed out that we are advocates of the 'first thousand days' approach to early childhood development. This is an approach within Australia that has been pioneered by Professor Kerry Arabena of the University of Melbourne, and she has been instrumental in advocating, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Australia as well as other Indigenous populations, the adoption of a broader, holistic and cultural approach to early childhood development, including education. What we need to understand is that there are people in this country who are working in this space and have given great thought to how to make sure that, from the time of conception—indeed, pre conception—we're working with families around the development of their young children. I want to give a shout-out to the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress in Alice Springs, which has adopted an Abecedarian model of development and growth for young kids of three and onwards, has got its own preschool and is addressing these issues we've described. It seems to me we in this place ought to be listening to the people who know. We need to make sure that every child in this country gets access to proper preschool education to set them up for life—and that's what this is about, as well as understanding the economic benefits which the member for Macarthur referred to. We have an opportunity and we have a responsibility here. If we fail to accept the opportunity and fail our responsibility, the people who are going to suffer are the current generation of young kids and future generations, and it will be because we're too negligent and too stupid to help them realise their full potential by investing in early childhood education. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Spinak, Mr Jeremy Mark 131 11:31 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I move: That this House: (1) notes with great sadness the passing of the former President of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies (JBD), Jeremy Spinak; (2) acknowledges with gratitude the work of organisations such as the NSW JBD; and (3) recognises the outstanding contribution the Jewish community has made to Australia. Shakespeare wrote: The breaking of so great a thing should make A greater crack: The round world should have shook Lions into civil streets And citizens to their dens. That's how I've felt since the untimely passing of my friend Jeremy Spinak, the former president of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, who died last month, aged 36, from the rare pericardial mesothelioma. Jeremy made such an impact in his short life that his passing has made me and others ask: what are we doing with our lives; what sort of contribution are we making; and where is the justice when someone so talented and so giving is taken from us so young? After the tragedy of September 11, when people were trying to make sense of the madness, Queen Elizabeth II issued a statement, saying: Grief is the price we pay for love. Our grief is so strong because Jeremy loved so many, and he was loved by so many. None are grieving more than Jeremy's family, and today in the gallery we're joined by Jeremy's wife, Rhiannon. Condolence motions are usually reserved for former members of parliament. The fact that we're paying tribute to Jeremy is indicative of the standing he held across the parliament and the country. At one time, Jeremy could very well have come to serve in this place. He spent time working for Michael Costa and Michael Easson, but over the years he lost the partisan urge and instead channelled his efforts into serving the Jewish people. I'd heard of Jeremy before I met him. In his work in the property industry, he was known to some of the Liberal Party branch members in my electorate—Yves El Khoury and John Vassallo. Although they knew of his Labor background, they spoke warmly of his professionalism and advocacy skills. In fact, John was so impressed by him that he employed him at Celestino. I got to know Jeremy by serving with him on the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies. As president Jeremy united a fractious executive and got people to work together. He didn't come to office in easy times. Almost immediately, he was hit with the Kashrut commission issue, the Gaza war, the Sydney Morning Herald cartoon incident, and the campaign which was waged against Vic Alhadeff. Jeremy rose to the challenge, dealing with each of these issues in turn. When he was assembling his executive, he asked if I'd consider becoming chair of what is now the Community Relations committee. It was the committee Jeremy himself had chaired. This sounded like a lot of work, and I wasn't sure I had the time. But Jeremy charmed me into it. That was the sort of bloke he was. He was somebody who could always enlist you in a good cause. Jeremy had a vision to deepen relationships between the Jewish community and other communities. His strategic vision has been implemented, initially under my leadership and then under the leadership of Gael Kennedy and the indomitable Lynda Ben-Menashe. Our relationships with the Indian, Armenian, Korean, Chinese, Assyrian, Catholic and even Uniting Church, to name a view, are much stronger as a result of Jeremy's vision. For me, working on this committee was the single best preparation for my time as a member of parliament, so I have a lot to thank Jeremy for. Over the last few years, Jeremy has done more personal kindnesses for me than I can say. He was always there to encourage me in my political activity or provide counsel when our son was born early and had to go into special care or when he checked in on me when I'd had a hard day here. Even during the leadership challenge this year, he offered me good advice and picked the eventual winner. Somehow Jeremy always knew when to call and what to say. Maybe it's because we shared a birthday, 25 May. His encouragement was a great comfort to me. Jeremy achieved more in his short lifetime than many of us ever will. When Jeremy's one-year-old twins, Grace and Michael, are older, if they ask me something about their dad, I'll tell them that Jeremy was a man of great humour, intelligence and foresight. He had an amazing sense of civic duty and concern for and pride in the Jewish people. He had extraordinary personal warmth. He had a wonderful way of dealing with people. He could break the tension in difficult circumstances with a joke or impersonation. He had the capacity to bring out the best in the people who worked with him, and if you asked him to do something he'd always back you up. Jeremy never forgot who he was, why he was here or where he wanted to go. He was a mensch: truly one of best people I've known. As we mourn Jeremy's loss, we must redouble our efforts in the way we interact with each other, in the way we maintain our focus and the way we work together to serve our community, our state and the nation. If we do that then we will well and truly honour the memory of Jeremy Spinak. Zikhrono livrakha—may his memory be a blessing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is the motion seconded? 11:36 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports I second the motion. First of all, I want to thank the member for Berowra for raising this important condolence and acknowledge in the gallery the presence of Jeremy Spinak's widow, Rhiannon, with whom he spent the last six, and best, years of his life. He was, as the member for Berowra said, one of the most important and influential leaders of the Jewish community in Sydney. To die of cancer at such a young age, 36, is a terrible tragedy for his family and friends but also for the Australian Jewish community and the people of Australia in general. I had a telephone connection with Jeremy, being a Victorian, and he impressed me very much, as the member for Berowra said, as a person who, in the younger generation, was able to look to a wider future, wider engagements, and to reconcile and deal with people of all different backgrounds that perhaps an older generation of leadership had lost the touch for. Jeremy's passion for the Australian Jewish community is well known. The president of the board, his successor and friend Lesli Berger, and Vic Alhadeff said: His influence on our approach to representing the community, coalition-building, legislative reform, child protection and supporting marriage equality were among the numerous achievements which will be his lasting legacy both to our organisation and the entire community. Such skills are rare. Such skills in a young man are even rarer. To have been taken at such a young age is a terrible tragedy, and we're all poorer for his passing. It's very interesting that the Premier of New South Wales actually had the cabinet—normally something that would only be done for a member of parliament—stand for a minute's silence. Gladys Berejiklian said: Jeremy was an outstanding community advocate and an amazing human being. He had a huge impact on everyone he met, including myself, and will be sorely missed. Jeremy was dedicated to forging links between our multicultural and religious communities and was a champion of an inclusive and harmonious State. Whether mentoring young Jewish leaders, advocating for policy reforms or strengthening ties with the diplomatic community, he represented our State's Jewry with pride and distinction. Jeremy's leadership was crucial to the NSW Government's passage of landmark reforms to protect our State's communities from the incitement of violence, replacing section 20D of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act. He may not have been here as a member of parliament, Member for Berowra, but he certainly had an effect on legislation. Rabbi Kamins, in his very moving address at the funeral service, which I attended, said: How did a 36-year-old man come to be the person he was, achieve so much and touch so many? A suggestion is given in our tradition, in Pirkei Avot, where the sage Ben Azzai says the most important verse in the Torah is the seemingly minor, "Zeh sefer toldot Adam—this is the book of the generations of Adam." Ben Azzai is suggesting that each one of us is a product of those who have come before us; Jeremy, gracious and thoughtful, a man of the book himself, always acknowledged those who preceded him in life with shaping his life. And the amazing story that Rabbi Kamins told of the generations that preceded Jeremy Spinak and how he was such a product of them was extremely fitting and moving for that funeral. In his final public address, in August, Jeremy Spinak knew that there would be no cure for his illness. Yet, with typical self-deprecating humour, he said: If you really want to know, at all times, no matter what happens, when you bump into my children, Grace and Michael, in the future bore them with your recollections of me and bore them with just how fantastic I was. Tell them of your memories and please give them a sense of what it was like working with their dad. For someone so young to have obtained so much respect is extraordinary. His death was announced at the New South Wales cabinet meeting, as I said, and the ALP caucus bestowed on him the honour normally only provided to former members of parliament on their passing, by standing for a minute's silence. I will conclude by quoting Rabbi Kamins: Ben Azzai has taught that the most important verse of Torah is: "These are the generations of man". Just as Jeremy has been a product of the generations of those who shaped him—his grandparents, Margie and Richard, Jason and Jenny—so too will Michael and Grace be the generation carrying his memory and influence, forever into the generations to come, forever a blessing and inspiration. 11:41 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong Firstly, I thank my good friend and colleague the member for Berowra for initiating this important motion, I acknowledge the member for Melbourne Ports for his warm words and I acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of Jeremy Spinak's family. Behind me in this chamber is a portrait of Sir Isaac Isaacs. Sir Isaac Isaacs was a great Australian and he was also a very proud Jew. He represented what the member for Melbourne Ports, the member for Berowra and I try to uphold in this place, which is a commitment to our Jewishness and a commitment to our country. Jeremy Spinak was not someone I knew well but was somebody whose deeds were known to me. He was a proud Australian but also an active and important leader within our Jewish community. Passing away aged 36 and leaving behind his wife, Rhiannon, and his twins, Grace and Michael, and many, many other friends means that he will be very sadly missed. He attended Woollahra Public School and Emanuel School. He was a former president of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies. While he was there, as the member for Berowra said, he dealt with some difficult issues and showed great leadership, including on the Kashrut commission issue as well as the Gaza conflict. He was described by those who knew him as a man of great warmth, intellect and civic duty. The reference to the speech by Rabbi Jeffrey Kamins is very powerful, but it is a quote that the rabbi used in his speech which I would just like to dwell on. It was from a congregant who wrote to the rabbi: It's so hard to accept why someone who created so much good in his short years and could make such a positive difference in the future should be taken away so young. This is the 'why?' that we never have an answer for. In our lives, all of us lose people who are close, but to lose someone so young, with a life so full of promise, is even more devastating. I say to his family: it's hard to forget someone who gave you so much to remember, and Jeremy's life will be remembered for all that he did for the Jewish community. As the member for Melbourne Ports mentioned, Premier Berejiklian described him as an outstanding community advocate and an amazing human being, but it's also the fact that he was a mentor to others that has shone through his life. Rabbi Kamins remembered how in December 2011, speaking at the Emanuel School speech night and reflecting on those years, Jeremy had given insight into how he lived life and what he valued. He had told the students that to be successful one should live a well-balanced life focusing not just on work but also on one's interests, one's relationships and one's community. These were lessons he had learned from his family that were now more deeply understood and internalised. His grandparents, like those of many of us in the Jewish community, fled Europe just before the Shoah, and this helped engender in him a great pride in his faith and his family history. Finally, I would like to quote from a message from Lesli Berger and CEO Vic Alhadeff, who talked about Jeremy joining the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies in his 20s and about how he was a driving force behind so much that was done. I would like to put on record our great appreciation for Jeremy Spinak's life— (Time expired) 11:47 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro I thank the member for Berowra for bringing forward this motion. He and I have worked together on issues relating to the prevention of suicide. I think we've both been inspired by the example of Jeremy Spinak. I want to acknowledge the presence of Rhiannon here. Our hearts and thoughts are with you through this time. It is very hard to speak about Jeremy in five minutes and encapsulate and do justice to the man. It's just not possible. But I do acknowledge and recognise the wonderful speech that Rabbi Kamins gave at the memorial service at Woollahra. He struggled to work his way through that speech, which really, I think, embodied the emotion at this loss that we all felt that day. I personally feel it greatly as well. Jeremy worked with so many people across the spectrum of politics and the spectrum of our lives. That was really what Jeremy was all about: Jeremy was a bridge builder. And no more important work can be done in this world at the present time, with the divisions and rifts and problems that we face, than the work of bridge building. In the Jewish faith there's a wonderful concept, tikkun olam, which is all about healing the world. There was no better embodiment of that principle than Jeremy. He took that obligation personally and strove every day, in every way, to deliver on that central tenet, that commitment. He did it across the spectrum, reaching out to people in faiths where sometimes there have been journeys to progress and get over historical anomalies and impediments. He laboured long and hard in the marriage equality debate and on issues like child protection, and he achieved magnificent outcomes in all of those battles that he fought. It was mentioned that there was a minute's silence in Gladys Berejiklian's cabinet room, which was a wonderful tribute. But there was also a minute's silence in Michael Daley's New South Wales caucus room, which really illustrates and brings home the concept of Jeremy as a bridge builder in the political sphere. More than in just the political sphere, he was very actively engaged in interfaith and intercultural bridge building. In Sydney, with its wonderful diversity of communities, he embraced and celebrated that diversity. He showed the way forward to inclusion and the way to build understanding. At this time, when we're seeing extreme right-wing elements out there trying to give new life to anti-Semitism—the Nazis who have been responsible for attacks on my own electorate offices—there's never been more important work than dispelling the myths, the misinformation and the propaganda that groups like that are seeking to disseminate. We've seen their active attempts to infiltrate political parties recently. The eternal vigilance that we must exercise in tribute to Jeremy in that space has been brought home more starkly in recent times. The other side of Jeremy that I want to celebrate, as well as commemorating him today, is his sense of humour. He was such a special person in that respect. He could defuse moments of tension and find that right moment to intervene with a point of wit. In fact, we exchanged text messages quite often during this period. In his last text message to me he joked about being at the 100th anniversary of the board in 2045. He was a very special person. As has been reflected here, he achieved more in 36 years than many people achieve in 100 years. It's incumbent upon us and we will strive to ensure that his young children understand the manner of man that was their father and their right to be proud of him—a pride we all share, having known Jeremy. His example will light our way for all our remaining days. He's physically gone but he will always be with us. Shalom, haver. 11:52 Dr PHELPS 008Z0 Wentworth I'm here to express condolences on the death of Jeremy Spinak. Jeremy Spinak was an exceptional member of the Wentworth community and his contribution to the community exceeded that of most people twice his age. I'd like to acknowledge the presence of his wife, Rhiannon, here today. Jeremy's life was centred in the electorate of Wentworth, but his impact on society was far wider. With an abiding love of history and an interest in politics gained from his grandparents and nurtured by his parents, his educational journey took him across the world, from Woollahra Public School to Georgetown University in Washington DC, via Emanuel school and the University of New South Wales. His early political career included an internship in the New South Wales parliament, a role in John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign and a position as a legislative aid to the US Senate minority leader. It was, however, through his service to the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies that Jeremy's impact on society was perhaps the most substantial. Jeremy served the board of deputies for over a decade, including a term as one of its youngest presidents—a role he relinquished just a few months before his untimely passing. Jeremy helped the organisation to grow in strength and drove an increased focus on intercultural relationships and interfaith programs. His leadership featured coalition-building, bipartisanship and advocacy across a wide range of issues, including strong support for marriage equality. Jeremy was particularly proud of creating dialogue with the Uniting Church, engaging with key ethnic and religious groups in New South Wales, facilitating former Premier Mike Baird's historic visit to Israel and helping organise a bespoke course on anti-Semitism for the editors of The Sydney Morning Herald. Jeremy was a much loved and greatly respected leader of the community. His commitment to social cohesion and intercultural harmony was unequivocal. He leaves behind a strong, positive legacy for the Jewish community, for its intercultural relations and for the wider community as a whole. I was deeply moved by the collective grief of the community at his funeral service and at the minyan the following day. We have lost a remarkable community leader at far too young an age. On behalf of all of the people of Wentworth, I wish to extend my deepest condolences to Jeremy's wife, Rhiannon, his baby twins, Grace and Michael, his parents, his siblings and the extended Spinak family. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Black Saturday Bushfires: 10th Anniversary 135 11:55 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) 7 February 2019 will be the 10th anniversary of the bushfires that devastated parts of Victoria; (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; (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; (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; (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; (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 (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 (2) calls on the Government to: (a) pay tribute to the strength, courage and resilience of those who survived the fires on 7 February 2009; (b) continue to provide support to individuals and communities who lost so much; (c) honour those who lost their lives in these fires; (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 (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. Colleagues, next year, in February, we will remember the 2009 bushfires in Victoria. Sadly, parliament won't be sitting then, so members from surrounding electorates have gathered today to honour, acknowledge and thank and to bring to mind those 10 years. I would like to honour those who died: the many, many people who died at the time and those who have died since. I would like to acknowledge the trauma, the hardship, the courage, the persistence and the dedication of individuals, groups and government during those fires, post the fires and, still working, 10 years on. I also would like to take the opportunity in this House today to reflect on and be thankful for the fact that, when disasters happen on such a large scale, many people come to help us. I know that, as I talk, this current circumstance is being played out in Queensland. To my electorate of Indi, people from right around the country gave so generously. Millions of dollars were invested at the time, and then in philanthropic trusts following the fires to continue to support people in my community. In bringing my remarks to the parliament today, I want to talk a little bit about some research, some outcomes and some things that we still need to work on. I'd like to start with research. I'm a great believer in the power of research. I'd like to bring to the attention of my colleagues today in parliament, and people watching this recording, some research on long-term disaster resilience that has been undertaken by Women's Health Goulburn North East, with support from Victorian and Commonwealth governments, Monash University and the Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation. It comes in three volumes: the executive summary, the long-term resilience full report and a literature review. I just want to read out some of the headings that are covered in this research before I pay particular attention to one finding: 'Part 1: Perceptions of disasters' significance'; 'Aren't you over it yet?'; 'What happened?'; 'A defining moment'; 'No getting over it'; and 'Long-term consequences of the disaster'. The second chapter talks about what helps and hinders resilience and what we can learn, particularly about gender in resilience. Then they talk about children, family obligations and disaster planning. It's a report well worth looking at. I'd particularly like to talk about one of the postcards that they've produced to help communities like mine as we prepare for summer. It's talking about gendered fire planning. I know you will find this interesting, Deputy Speaker Bird, because, when they did the research, they talked to men and to women and to LGBTI people affected and saw that gender makes a huge difference. And the case I'm going to bring up is about fire plans. Only five per cent of people actually have a written fire plan. When they did the research, they saw that there was an enormous difference between what men and women thought a fire plan was. Mostly women say: 'We want to go. We'll pack the stuff up, we'll get out and we'll get out early'. But what they found is that there's a heroic sense that many of our Australian men have of staying and fighting the fires. Women would escape alone or with children, often in terrifying circumstances. What happened with our men was that they would stay and fight or, alternatively, leave late. You've got the family in the car having a rip-roaring argument about what's going on. It's in those circumstances that many of the people died. The importance of fire planning and how men and women are doing it, understanding that we do it differently, is really important. This report has just got so much in it that's worth reading, and I can't recommend it enough. It's not only got recommendations but also wisdom for how we move forward. I'd also like briefly to comment that we're not over it yet in north-east Victoria. There is still work to be done. There's infrastructure work. There are people with mental health issues. And there are communities still very much affected by those fires. So, to all the people involved, thank you for the work you've done. We haven't forgotten you. We know we've got to continue to work. To those facing bushfires in other parts of Australia: come to us, because we've got a lot of knowledge and wisdom to share about how we worked and how we can support you during your time of need. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP I thank the member. Is the motion seconded? Mr Rob Mitchell M3E I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 12:00 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies Last Friday morning, as I was flying back from Canberra to Melbourne, our plane was put in a holding pattern for a while, and we were circling around that area of Victoria on the Great Divide. It was a beautiful, clear morning; you could see clearly to the Gippsland lakes and the Ninety Mile Beach in one direction, right through to the Murray in the other. But what struck me the most, as the plane circled for 10 or 15 minutes, was that you could still see the scars in the bush of the 2009 bushfires. Those 2009 Black Saturday bushfires were the most devastating in Australia's history. One hundred and seventy-three people, tragically, lost their lives; 414 were injured. More than a million animals were lost. Four hundred and fifty thousand hectares of land were burnt, and you can still see many of the scars where 3,500 buildings, including more than 2,000 homes, were destroyed. So this was a devastating tragedy for all those concerned. The response of the communities, as the member for Indi has indicated, was a great response—a very significant response. People from all walks of life did what they could. They made contributions where they could to relief agency efforts et cetera, to ensure that, as best as possible, we could aid all of those who had been devastated by these fires. I want to talk about the future, because this coming summer season has already been indicated by fire authorities and others as one which will be more hot than usual, and one where there are more likely to be those sorts of unusual conditions which come along from time to time. We had 100-kilometre-per-hour winds on that Black Saturday during those bushfires almost a decade ago. I put that in this context: a recent Country Fire Authority survey revealed that half of all Victorians living in areas of high risk of bushfire actually classified the risk to their homes as only 'moderate', 'minor' or 'non-existent'. In other words, there's a huge disconnect between the actual risk and people's perception of the risk in many instances. A third said they would only leave when a fire threatened their town or suburb—rather than on the morning of, or the night before, a day of extreme fire danger, which, of course, is the CFA advice. So preparing for this fire season is very important, particularly in the context of the summer which we are facing right throughout Australia. And of course we see what's happening in other parts of Australia at the present time. I particularly urge my constituents in the new areas of my electorate, in Eltham, Eltham North, Research, Kangaroo Ground and North Warrandyte—places which have been touched by bushfires in the past; places in which there are very few ready exits, in terms of major roads, if people need to flee—to actually be prepared and to have plans for what they might do should these extreme warnings come from the Country Fire Authority and other authorities. Of course there's the other work that people can do now, such as cleaning up their property—especially around their house—which can reduce the risk and, therefore, in many instances, reduce and prevent destruction. So, even if you are going to leave early, please follow the steps that the CFA and other Fire authorities have set out in terms of minimising damage to property. Move furniture, wood piles and mulch away from windows, decks and eaves. Prune tree branches so that they're not overhanging the roof or touching walls. Keep grass shorter than 10 centimetres and regularly remove leaves and twigs. Don't allow plants higher than 10 centimetres in front of windows or glass doors. And of course, if you are leaving, before you do so, make sure you remove all flammable items from around your home. Houses have been lost from things as simple as embers landing on a doormat. And a decade ago we saw those great ember storms that went kilometres forward and caused so much damage and destruction as a consequence. Then there are very practical things such as checking that your home and contents insurance is current and includes a level of cover in line with current building standards and regulations. This is simple commonsense advice which is given by the authorities in relation to the risks that people face; yet, as the CFA survey showed, many people who are at a significant risk are not aware of the level of the risk—and, of course, that itself can be a trap for them if they do find themselves in the devastating and tragic consequences that we saw in Victoria a decade ago. So I urge everybody, whether in my electorate or wherever else in Victoria or Australia, with this season of a hot summer coming, to take the necessary precautions to try and minimise any damage if it should tragically occur. 12:05 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen I think back to what happened about 10 years ago in February, which was probably the worst day in most people's lives. I remember standing in the backyard at my place at lunchtime, and my wife was excited because the washing was dry in 10 minutes because the wind was blowing so hard. Later that day, 1,000 CFA and other firefighters fought the fires. There were 173 deaths and more to follow. Something that I think gets overlooked a lot of the time is the deaths that have occurred since the fire and that continue to occur today. Thirty-five children died and 16 became orphans in one terrible afternoon. I think back to people like Bill Coppinger; Trish and Alan Heywood; David and Amanda Cordell; Helen Kenny, who is four foot tall but has a heart the size of the MCG; Anne Leadbeater; Jim Usher and Mac Gudgeon, for the book they wrote, Footsteps in the Ash; Jane Heywood, the principal of Strathewen Primary School, and probably one of the greatest people you'll ever get to meet in your life; Laura and Cameron Caine; Kathy Stewart; and Sue Egan. I could rattle off names for hours of people that have done amazing things in our communities. But the key thing keeps coming back: this was not something that happened and finished; this is something that happened and continues to grow. From day one, people had a whole range of issues, a whole range of views and a whole range of ways they wanted to move forward. I think of Steve at the Flowerdale pub, who kept putting on parma, after parma, after parma to help the volunteers during that time. I think about the number of people who suffered mental health issues and continue to do so today. I think about the children, who at the time may have been six and 10 years old and are now young adults and still live with the trauma and have issues today. I know of one girl, who is probably 19 now, who still gets up every day and cleans the windows of her house, making sure that those windows are clear to see the fire coming. These types of things happen every single day, and we need to ensure that we're there for our communities. They are not asking for handouts; they just want the help that's needed. Many people moved on straightaway, some people moved away later, some people stayed and some people have barely been able to lift a foot since those days. The support needs to be ongoing for our communities. I was glad to take Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, up to Kinglake a couple of weeks ago to announce some funding there. The funding for the streetscape was important, but also important was the time to sit down with people in a closed forum and talk about what's going on. That sort of thing is important. There needs to be support for people with mental health issues and support for the community. Since Black Saturday, people have worked every day and haven't had a rest. They haven't had the opportunity to take their family away. We all may move away and move on to different things, but each and every day that you drive up that hill to Kinglake or you go through Strathewen or you look across at the back of my place in Whittlesea to the mountains all you can see is scars. These are physical scars on a landscape, but you can't see the scars that the people carry. I think about people I know who perished that day, particularly old Reg Evans, a crusty old bloke from St Andrews—one of the greatest Labor people I have ever met—who decided to nick back because he wanted to save something. I think about Elaine Postlethwaite from Marysville, who had a fight with her husband—he stayed and she left. There are many stories like that. We need to make sure that our communities are given the help and the support that they need to continue. We have learnt from this. We know that, through what we went through, other communities across the nation in disasters have benefited. I know from the floods in Brisbane, within the first hour of these things happening, I was getting phone calls from people from Kinglake and from Whittlesea saying, 'We want to help.' Kevin and Rhonda Butler from BlazeAid started a group to go along and fix up farmers' fencing. It's a full-time career for them now. Wherever there is a natural disaster, you will find BlazeAid there helping to restore fences. So, No. 1, please don't forget our communities; they still need our help, and we have a long way to go. 12:10 Mr BROADBENT ( MT4 McMillan ) ( ): McMillan was an affected area, and my wife and I were down the street in the newsagent at Pakenham in the immediate aftermath of this fire. She said to me as I walked in, 'If this was John Howard instead of Kevin Rudd, he'd have rung by now; he'd have been talking to you,' and the phone went, and it was Kevin Rudd. The best part was that we were being acknowledged as a community by the leaders of the nation. My speech of that time stands on the record, and I don't step back from what I said at that time. I think I actually identified with where the community was at and where we were at, and how I was proud of the response of the federal parliament in regard to this horrific few hours. Things can change in a day. In the morning, I thought my little farm was fine. We didn't have a problem. So I rang others and said, 'Look, you're under threat. Send the animals here, load them up and bring them here'. Within an hour, we knew we had to leave. Being a 12-year fireman myself, from the early morning until the midmorning, my place had gone from a safe haven to one of the most dangerous places you could be in, because of the temperature. Even though I was totally prepared, nothing could have stopped it had that fired continued on its path towards our place. Just recently, I was at Hedley, and I was hoping to come in and say that we've got a new generation of firefighters—that we've got all these young people and new equipment. But, at Hedley the other day at a hall committee meeting on a history matter, there was the head of the fire services down there, and—like, I bet, in your electorate and in your electorate the same—we haven't got the numbers of people coming forward as volunteers and joining, and we just haven't got the population in some cases in these small the areas. So it is the same people preparing for the fire. One of the difficult things as we that represent country electorates are reading our electorates all the time is this: the last tragedy we had was preceded by poor rainfall in the spring and poor rainfall in the autumn. This year, we have had poor rainfall in the spring and poor rainfall in the autumn and then rain at a time of maximum growth. Here we are just before Christmas. It is the most dangerous place. It was referred to by the member for Menzies and others; we're in a dangerous time again. Queensland shows that we haven't been burning off enough, as our Indigenous communities did for thousands of years before us. We don't understand the threat even now, and we think we'll be all right. As the member for McEwen said, very clearly: 'You think you'll be all right? Well, you have to consider whether you can survive such an onslaught when living in country communities.' Even now, people are being caught out. The tragedy of the personal lives has been raised by the member for Indi and especially, very well, by the member for McEwen. I join with you and say there are people grieving right now as they listen to this address for the family that they lost at that time. We can never understand the grief of a mother who has lost a son, daughter-in-law or children—never—and how they continue to survive and go on in their lives after being confronted with such tragedy in such terrible circumstances. We can only empathise with them, with those who have been hurt and knocked about. We can only do our best to make sure that our communities are prepared in a way that will protect them. We can only send out a message that says: 'Don't hang around. Your life is worth more. Get out of the place. Grab what you need to get and go.' Bron took the dog before me, by the way, when we left; the dog got in the car first. You can understand that—I can! Thank you, member for Indi, for allowing me to speak on this. (Time expired) 12:15 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I'd also like to acknowledge the member for Indi for moving this motion, because this is the last chance that we'll get to debate it before the anniversary, with parliament resuming that week in February. I want to acknowledge the other speakers who've spoken on this motion, in particular the member for McEwen, whose electorate was one of the worst-affected on Black Saturday. Those personal stories, those people, those constituents, are real. Whilst in Bendigo we did lose a life on Black Saturday, there has always been a sense around Bendigo of, even though we lost homes and stock, how lucky we were that there weren't more who were killed on the day. It is largely due to the amazing effort of our CFA, SES and fire services—the professionals and volunteers—and of the community rallying together, but it was also due to some luck. It is quite alarming to reflect every fire season, 'Were we lucky this year?' In a country of our size, in a country of our wit and capability, it can come down to luck on these terrible days, these bushfire-risk days. Like all Victorians, this date is the date you always remember. I remember where I was on Black Saturday. I was still working for United Voice and was doing the early shift. There was a shift change at Crown Casino. It's climate controlled there. I walked out at seven o'clock in the morning after the shift change and I can remember going, 'Geez, it's hot.' That was at seven o'clock in the morning. It was like five o'clock on those really hot days that you get in a normal summer, and here it was at seven o'clock and you felt like you'd just walked into an oven. There was an eeriness about that morning that there was going to be trouble, because it was just too hot that day. Like everyone, I saw it roll out. I didn't leave the city that day, because we didn't know whether it was safe to get home or how to get home. The stories started to unfold about adult children who were away from home, working in the city, and mums saying, 'Don't come home,' and that being the last conversation that they had. That trauma that those individuals have, that those families and communities have, can never be forgotten. That is for two reasons. One, they learn to live with that, and it's hard. We need to be there to support them. Two, we don't want any others to have to risk that in the future. The member for McEwen is right, and the leader of the opposition mentioned this last week. Post Black Saturday, in Victoria, there was a lot that went on in the way of debriefing, planning and modelling. A lot of it actually occurred in my electorate at the Australian Emergency Management Institute, which was in Mount Macedon. It will be in the member for McEwen's electorate at this election. That institute was where the best in our country came together to reflect and say what we could do better. It's where they came up with the simulation on how to better manage bushfires, and that is what we are seeing played out now in Queensland—people getting out, the intense water bombing and having preparedness and resilience within communities. It's unfortunate that this government shut down the Australian Emergency Management Institute. It was one of the casualties of their 2014 budget. We lost the ability to properly plan, as a nation, that we'd had previously because the government shut the institute down. They saw a price that they couldn't refuse. Former Attorney-General Brandis saw the price tag and said: 'Great! Let's offload this.' They saw the word 'institute' and thought it was an educational facility. Sure, it did have education—it offered a diploma in emergency management—but it also brought people together to do the planning and come up with best practice so that in our country we would never again face a Black Saturday. We may face the conditions but not the loss of lives and property. I also want to remember the leaders at that time: John Brumby, the former Premier, whose parents almost lost their home on that day in Bendigo; and Bill Shorten, the then Parliamentary Secretary for Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction. We should never forget that day. 12:20 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson I'm pleased to speak on this motion marking the impending 10th anniversary of the devastating bushfires in Victoria. With the loss of 173 lives, more than 2,000 homes and 450,000 hectares of land, that bushfire ranks as one of the worst in Australia's history. Victorians not directly in the line of fire and those living interstate watched on in horror, through their television screens, as the terrible event unfolded. The scale of the disaster was difficult to comprehend for many. The 10th anniversary is a chance to reflect on that devastation, honour the memory of those lost, and remember the suffering of their families and friends and those who lost possessions. It's a time to honour and pay tribute to the courage, bravery and dedication of those who fought the fires and helped rebuild the lives of people and their communities. Unfortunately, bushfires have always been a feature of the wide brown land we live in. Queensland is currently in the grip of bushfires raging across much of the state; in particular, in Central Queensland and North Queensland. Most of the hundred fires have caused widespread devastation, including the loss of one life, the destruction of numerous vehicles and buildings and the burning of more than half a million hectares of land. Last night there were more than 160 firefighting crews on the ground fighting bushfires right across the state of Queensland, including those in and around my electorate of Dawson. I am told the situation is expected to worsen today. Strong winds combining with very hot and dry conditions do not make it an ideal time for fighting fires. I want to make special mention of the Central Queensland man who died at his family's property south of Emerald last week. He was struck by a falling tree while clearing a firebreak to protect his family's property. I would like to extend my condolences to his family and the Emerald community. In our own Finch Hatton, not in my electorate but just on the border of my electorate, farmer Robert Blines—and I know the Blines family very well—lost his house, his shed, his equipment and his crop while he was out fighting fires elsewhere. Finch Hatton cane farmer Burnie Ward also lost 100 per cent of his crop. He fought hard to save his house, bucketing water out of his dam because there was no power to pump the water. More than 700 hectares of high-value sugarcane crops were destroyed. CQ Rescue and its brave staff, under the leadership of Ian Rowan, need to be mentioned because they airlifted 10 people, including six children and an infant, out of Eungella. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, who's responsible for emergency management, visited my electorate. They went to Capricornia, just on the doorstep of my electorate, to the communities of Finch Hatton, Netherdale and Eungella, to survey the damage and speak to those who were involved in fighting these fires—those in the SES and other volunteers who were assisting them. It is so heartening to see the community's response to this. The whole community has come together, and I have to applaud the leadership of Greg Williamson, Mayor of Mackay Regional Council. I visited Bloomsbury— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:24 to 12:37 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 I want to acknowledge those who are out there fighting the fires around the Bloomsbury area right now and those who are helping them out. Locals told me over the weekend that over 100,000 hectares up there have been burnt, including livestock burnt alive and fencing and vehicles—tractors, dozers and utes—destroyed. A number of grazing properties have been completely razed. I visited the properties of Tania Plemenuk and saw Max McFarlane's property on the weekend—absolutely devastating scenes there of totally scorched earth. I want to particularly mention Christine Kinnear, who's leading the group of volunteers at the Bloomsbury community hall to help out and feed all the men and women out there fighting fires; the local fire warden Paul Camm; and blokes like Tony Jeppesen, whose properties were at risk and who are out there helping their mates. There are about 100 men and women fighting a 20-kilometre front of fire—all of them volunteers trying to stop that fire through a series of controlled burns and breaks around local properties. They've been battling it for hours and hours and hours every day since last Tuesday. I've got to say: it's great that assistance is on the way and concessional loans have been approved by state and federal governments for primary producers. There are going to be community recovery teams out in the field, and hopefully more assistance will come if category C assistance is declared. My heart goes out to all of those who are battling the fires right now. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of date for the next sitting. Prime Minister's Veterans Employment Commitment 140 12:39 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I move: That this House notes: (1) that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs launched the Prime Minister's Veterans Employment Commitment (VEC) on 2 November 2018; (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; (3) that hiring veterans is good for business and encourages all Australian businesses to sign the VEC and hire a veteran; (4) that the second annual Prime Minister’s Veterans' Employment Awards will be held in March 2019; (5) that the awards recognise:    (a) businesses of all types and sizes that employ and support veterans and spouses of current serving Australian Defence Force (ADF) members; and    (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 (6) the ongoing efforts of the Government to improve the support and services available to the men and women transitioning out of the ADF. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs launched the Prime Minister's Veterans Employment Commitment on 2 November 2018. I want to take this opportunity to thank all men and women who have served this nation in uniform, whether they're currently still in uniform or whether they have left the service. I've spoken on many occasions in this place and in the House about the mental health of veterans and the challenges that many of them face when they leave the service. I want to concentrate more today on the community's obligation to help veterans transition to civilian life. I've often talked about the fact that, when men and women are serving in the military, one moment they're flying, driving or sailing multimillion-dollar and sometimes multibillion-dollar equipment, and, when they discharge from the military, many of them have great difficulties in finding employment. It's the age-old saying: 'Idle hands make the devil's work.' When you're not engaged in meaningful employment, your self-esteem drops. There is nothing like having a good, solid job that enables you to pay the bills and contribute to our society. It's the feeling that you get from contributing to your society—that feeling of having to get up in the morning and go to work. It's that routine. In my role as a parliamentarian, I've spoken to many service men and women about this issue. It's that loss of tribe, that loss of purpose, when men and women discharge that this employment commitment tries to overcome. I hope the member for Solomon is going to back me up on this, and I'm sure that all men and women in this place, particularly those who have served, feel very passionately about this. We need to concentrate on the positives. We often talk in this place about the challenges in relation to the mental health of discharging veterans. But that is a double-edged sword. I'm concerned that the more we talk about the mental health of veterans the more we almost set up an expectation, particularly in our younger veterans' minds, that, if you serve in the military, it's going to impact upon your mental health. It's almost as though there is a perception that it follows as night follows day. We've got to stop the expectation that, if somebody has served in the military, they are a broken person. Our veterans are highly skilled, highly motivated individuals who can add such a huge and different dimension to workplaces. I'm throwing out the challenge today to employers across the nation. The next time you want to employ someone, make it a veteran—man, woman, doesn't matter. Make it a veteran. You will not regret it. You will find a person who is absolutely focused on the team, whatever the team might be, whether it's selling insurance or laying bricks. If you employ a veteran, you are showing that veteran that you care. But it's not about charity, because it's not about what you can do for them; it's what they can do for you and your business. They will add a different dimension, a different quality. You cannot buy loyalty. Veterans will bring a great degree of loyalty to their role in working for small business. It is up to us—it's not just up to government; it's up to all of us as Australians—to pull together and support veterans in employment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Can I have a seconder, please, for the member's motion? Mrs Prentice 217266 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 12:44 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I thank the honourable member for Fisher for this private member's motion on a very important topic. The Prime Minister's Veterans Employment Commitment that we've just heard about is a step forward, and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is to be commended for his efforts to assist veterans. I attended the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Awards presentation, and I was very encouraged by the promise of the words that were spoken on that evening, obviously inspired by the veterans that we heard from. It's very important that businesses appreciate the skills and experience that veterans can bring to their business. As the member for Fisher just said, after ADF members leave the forces, they can bring core values and critical skills to the workplace: professionalism, loyalty, integrity, courage, innovation and teamwork—all essential also to good business. However, I also think there should also be more emphasis on assisting the veterans themselves to be more ready for jobs as they transition into civilian life. Around 6,000 ADF members transition every year from the ADF into civilian street—civvy street, we used to call it—and a significant proportion of them remain unemployed. When you consider the values that they could potentially bring to businesses, that's a big loss. That transitioning cohort represents, I think, one of the most underutilised segments of our economy. Sometimes veterans may not understand the civilian application of the skills that they already possess, so we must work, in a bipartisan way, with veterans and their families to prepare them for meaningful post-service employment. To speak from the current federal opposition's perspective, but in no way to make this partisan, a Shorten Labor government will commit $121 million to a comprehensive veterans employment policy to provide greater support to our Defence personnel as they prepare themselves for the job market. Labor's plan will help our veterans into good jobs by doing more to boost recognition of their inherent and significant skills and experiences. We'll provide eligible businesses with training grants of up to $5,000 in order to help veterans gain the skills and experience they need to move into a civilian job, and we'll fund an education campaign on the many benefits of employing veterans and on their translatable skills. Employment and transition services to provide better tailored and individualised support are also part of our commitment, and we'll make sure that veterans receive recognition of those prior skills and experience by civilian professional organisations and institutions. That is what we on this side are committed to. As for my electorate, we'll invest in the health and wellbeing of our veterans in the Top End by establishing the Scott Palmer Service and Veterans' Support Hub, a centre dedicated to providing support to our current and former Defence service personnel and first responders, and their families, including this important transition to civilian employment. It is a good investment, and I thank my friend the member for Kingston for her support for my electorate and the Northern Territory in that commitment. As I said, there will be assistance with finding employment. It will be a true hub. It is named after Private Scott Travis Palmer, who, tragically, lost his life on operational service in Afghanistan. Recently I met with one of Scott Palmer's 2nd Commando Regiment comrades, Dallas Hodgetts, from ex-service organisation the Shield Academy, and he reminded us, 'Hiring a veteran is not just a patriotic act; it is a shrewd and profitable business strategy.' I think that's important and that's why I wanted to repeat it. That is from a veteran who is helping other veterans get into work: 'Hiring a veteran is not just a patriotic act; it is a shrewd and profitable business strategy'. I commend to the House this motion on helping veterans into employment. 12:49 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise today in support of the motion. I thank the member for Fisher for bringing it to the attention of our Chamber. I am proud to be part of a government which is investing a record $200 billion in Australian Defence Force capabilities, a government which recognises the significant contribution of all of our armed services and a government which is ensuring that Australia's veterans can be confident in their transition from defence to civilian life. Australians have enormous respect for our veterans. However, respect is only one facet of what we can do to support them when they return to civilian lives. With 58,000 Australians serving in our defence forces for an average of 8½ years, service men and women spend a significant portion of their career in service. On leaving, many veterans still have a working life ahead of them and a full contribution that they want to make to society. Transitioning to the realities of civilian life is a major adjustment, and we must ensure that no-one falls through the cracks. With 320,000 veterans with deployment service in the Australian community, it should be clear to everyone that they deserve respect and support for their service, no matter whether it was in conflict or peacetime. Every year, more than 5,000 people leave the ADF, and the coalition is working to ensure they transition smoothly and find meaningful employment. Many employers already recognise the value of the skills and experience of our veterans. The Veterans Employment Commitment, the VEC, which builds on the success of the Veterans' Employment Program, will be rolled out to businesses that want to benefit from the skills and experience of Australian veterans. The VEC will identify businesses that provide career opportunities to veterans to upskill and mentor them and are focused on how to retain them. Simply put, hiring a veteran is good for business. Businesses that sign the commitment will be listed on the official Veterans' Employment Program website and have their details shared with veterans looking for work and through networking events, and they will be able to use the commitment logo to advertise their support. By connecting veterans to employers, we can make the transition much easier. Over the course of their careers in defence, our ADF personnel acquire qualities that are in high demand. They are leaders, they are problem-solvers and they work well in teams. This motion also draws the attention of the House to the second Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Awards held in March 2019. With the success of the inaugural awards in 2018, this is an occasion to recognise the achievements of veterans in workplaces and recognise individuals who have honed their ADF experience to commence or take on a successful business. Gallipoli Barracks is located in the Ryan electorate. I know all too well that the many jobs once performed internally by ADF personnel are now fulfilled by external contractors. While sourcing external defence contractors is not new, it is often disappointing that many of those working for those organisations have no defence knowledge—perhaps an opportunity upon which we could capitalise. I believe that we could, indeed should, further the remit of the VEC and make sure that, contractually, the successful proponents for government tenders are obligated to employ a percentage of veterans. Consider a successful proponent of a defence contract: with their own equal employment opportunity standards, a proponent should be empowered to employ veterans who most likely have knowledge and experience which is beneficial to the task at hand. Perhaps I'm just thinking outside the square. However, anything that can be done to support a smooth transition to civilian life should be of mutual benefit and should be considered. The coalition government is not just ensuring that our ADF, whether it's the Army, the Air Force or the Navy, has the capabilities to keep us safe in the 21st century; we're also ensuring the best possible futures for those who give so much to keep Australia safe. Again I thank my colleague the member for Fisher for raising awareness of the government's commitment to the positive transition of veterans, from being battle ready to being civilian ready. Australian business employers, I encourage you to consider the invaluable contribution a veteran can bring to your workplace. Over the course of their careers in defence, our ADF personnel acquire qualities that are in high demand. This House must always remain indebted to Australia's veterans. The Veterans Employment Commitment is fundamental to recognising the service of our service men and women to Australia. I commend the motion to the House. 12:54 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I rise to speak on this motion today and to thank everyone who has spoken in this debate—importantly, highlighting the issue around veterans' employment and what we can do better when it comes to supporting veterans to gain meaningful employment after their time in service. This is an issue I have been discussing for some time. It's an issue I have spoken about with veterans in most places around Australia. It's one of the significant issues that comes up. I have often talked about it as an issue—and not necessarily because veterans don't have the skills and experience. There is a lost-in-translation piece, where veterans do find it difficult to explain and summarise the skills that they've gained within the ADF, and employers don't necessarily always know how to interpret them. Statistics compiled last year indicate that veterans' unemployment five years after discharge was shocking, at 30.2 per cent. Even those who were not medically discharged face a joblessness rate of about 11 per cent, which is almost double the national rate. Last week, a report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare stated that the joblessness rate for veterans who discharged between 2010 and 2014 was listed at 16 per cent and noted there was a lack of information available on the level of employment, unemployment and underemployment across the veterans' population. So the numbers vary, but I think all the numbers that have been put on the table clearly show that not enough is being done when it comes to our veterans' employment and not enough has been done so that those who have served their country and have decided to transition are actually supported to get meaningful employment after their time in the ADF. Labor has continued to offer support to the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Program, and, indeed, to a number of the announcements. But we have stated that we, and I have been on the record stating that I, don't believe this goes far enough. These individuals are highly skilled and would be a valuable addition to any workplace. While it is important to ensure that businesses understand the many benefits of hiring a veteran, it's also important that we best prepare those businesses to employ veterans and those individuals to move into employment. Like I said, at the moment there is a lost-in-translation piece, and we need to do everything we can to address it. It is for this reason that Labor has announced a $121 million veterans' employment policy, which will seek to meet our obligations to those who have served our country. Our policy has four main pillars, which include providing grants to businesses. These are training grants of up to $5,000. They are important for businesses because they might have an otherwise suitable veteran who has a small gap in their skills and abilities, and those training grants are about plugging those small gaps to ensure that an otherwise competitive veteran would get a job. Our policy also includes establishing a new veterans' employment service to better prepare, on an individual basis, an ADF person for their time of transition. It also includes better and expanded access to education and civilian training, and proactive work by Defence to translate the experience of the veteran into the civilian sector, so that the onus isn't always on the veteran to work out how they fit into the puzzle and so that work is done to ensure that they have Defence and other organisations proactively working with them to help them translate their skills. I need to be very clear that our policy is not about charity. Veterans and ex-service personnel have a wealth of practical skills that would make a valuable contribution to any workplace. It is about ensuring that industries have the support they need and that veterans are best prepared to move into employment. I'd like to also thank every veteran and veterans' advocacy group who have helped us to develop our strategy. There has been extensive consultation with current and ex-serving Defence personnel, and we believe that our program will deliver tangible outcomes and support for veterans and their loved ones. That is why I absolutely think that if the government would like to steal our policy then we are happy for them to do so, because we think it is an important way forward to ensure that veterans receive the support they need. (Time expired) 13:00 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert There has not been a bill, motion or ministerial statement concerning ADF veterans and ex-serving personnel that I have not spoken on in this place. Every and any time there is a chance for me to support our current serving and ex-serving veterans and their families I will always stand up and voice my support. Those who have served have given so much to us and to our country. I will always stand in this place to recognise them, acknowledge them, support them and ensure that they get the best policies to meet their needs. I have made no secret of the fact I am proud to represent the largest garrison city in Australia in this place. That is why I set up the first defence reference group in the country, the Townsville Defence Community Reference Group, which has representations from Lavarack, the RAAF base and all of the ESOs. Working with the ESOs enables me to stand in this place and truly represent their voices, their opinions and their needs, as I am today. Veterans' issues have always been bipartisan, and I am more than happy to work with and support the government regarding our veterans and ex-serving personnel and their families. When I meet with veterans, the No. 1 issue discussed with them and their families is transitioning to civilian life, particularly in relation to employment. ADF personnel have developed a vast range of skills and capabilities during their service time. It is unfortunate that more often than not these skills are not recognised when our members leave the forces. There is not a certificate from TAFE or a degree from a university. In meeting with these young men and women and witnessing the work that they undertake, I know they possess an extensive range of skills. This is a very big issue for them. Although I support the government's initiative, I must also be a little critical of it in order to provide a fair voice for veterans and ex-serving members who are struggling with transitional work. There are, of course, some veterans that have no issues in transitioning, but I take the view, as do many veterans, that we must not leave one good man or woman behind. Yet that is what is currently happening with the government's commitments; they just don't go far enough in providing support. Governments need to provide support for our veterans during this most difficult time. That is why Labor has committed $121 million to a very comprehensive veterans employment policy, to provide greater support to our defence personnel as they transition to civilian life. Labor's plan will help our veterans into good jobs, by doing more to boost recognition of their significant current skills and experiences and better support veterans moving into the civilian workforce. Best estimates cite veterans' unemployment as sitting at about 30 per cent. For those who do not medically discharge, there is an estimated 11.2 per cent unemployment rate, which is more than double the national average. This is unacceptable. A Labor government will provide eligible businesses with a training grant of up to $5,000 in order to help veterans gain the skills and experiences that they made need to move into civilian work. Whilst businesses are open to employing veterans, there can be specific short-term skill gaps which may act as a barrier to employment for an otherwise suitable candidate. This grant is designed to bridge that gap. In addition, Labor will fund an education campaign on the many benefits and translatable skills of veterans to be developed by an industry advisory committee. Furthermore, a Labor government will establish an employment and transition service that will provide greater individualised and tailored support to transitioning veterans over a longer period of time. Labor will enable better access to additional education and civilian training for transitioning ADF members by reducing the length of service required to access the career training assistance scheme and increase funding for members, starting from $5,000 and increasing to $7,500, depending on the number of years served. When our men and women commit to serving our country we must in return make a commitment to support them after their time in the ADF. Labor's veterans employment program is a key initiative to ensure that those working in the defence forces can move into meaningful and purposeful employment, which is a key element of a successful transition from the ADF into civilian life. Debate adjourned. Business 144 13:05 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I move: That this House: (1) notes that:    (a) the disparity of petrol prices between regional and rural areas compared to city prices is not explainable and must be investigated; and    (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 (2) calls on the Government to:    (a) request the Governor-General to establish a Royal Commission into the supermarket and petrol retailing sectors; and    (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:       (i) misuse of market power;       (ii) unfair contract terms;       (iii) unconscionable conduct; and       (iv) pricing collusion. In 2008, there was a major ACCC inquiry into the power of supermarkets. This was followed by a Productivity Commission inquiry and two Senate inquiries. Fines were issued, a voluntary Food and Grocery Code of Conduct was adopted and the effects test legislation has been enacted. This is because it is well-known and documented that there are serious issues in relation to the major supermarkets. I say that things have not changed. The problems are systemic. It needs a royal commission. Allegations of bullying, intimidation and unfair contracts are rampant. Suppliers won't make complaints for fear of retaliation. As we found out in the Woolworths action in the Federal Court last year, what the ACCC finds to be unconscionable behaviour, the court can declare is perfectly legal. As the ACCC's Rod Sims said at the time: If you're a supplier subject to arbitrary demands, it's very hard to make future investment decisions in the face of financial uncertainty. One supplier of a well-known grocery item from a different state from me told me that one supermarket wanted to run a special one item of theirs at cost price. When the supplier declined, the supermarket pulled 13 of the supplier's lines. They also lost priority shelf space for three months in retaliation. Another was forced into administration after supplying fresh products for 30 years. A number of years ago, he tried to negotiate a price increase after his costs, including labour and power, had jumped 14½ per cent. He was told he had to keep his costs down. The suppliers said that the only way he could do that would be to pay under award wages, and he was not prepared to do that. A couple of months later, they received a call instructing them to accept a price cut across all their lines of between five and 30 per cent. It was the end of their business. Many suppliers have also told me agreements are only verbal and are often ignored. The closest thing they get to a contract is the last delivery order, and the quantity of any order can be massively cut just hours before it is to be shipped because the supermarket has found a cheaper supplier. This leaves the supplier footing the bill of wasted produce. The extraordinary time it takes to negotiate with the supermarket to sell through its doors and the buy-in cost means moving to rival supermarkets can be prohibitive. In effect, each supermarket is its own single market, and the supplier is punished if it is not compliant. Those are just some examples. I could quote many more. The pattern, though, is that the supermarkets are bullies; they act like bullies, they are bullies to their suppliers, and it is not okay. In the royal commission I have called for, I also want to look at Australia's retail petrol market. Why is there such a large disparity between pump prices in the capital cities and those in a regional community like mine? It is not unusual for there to be a 20c to 30c per litre differential between regional and city prices. This is not explainable by transport costs or any other cost input. In fact, in my region for the last five weeks, it has been 40c higher than in the capital city two hours ago. With very little public transport options in the country, and the longer distance travelled, it's a huge impost on people and regional economies. As a member of the Standing Committee on Economics, I asked the head of the ACCC, Rod Sims, about this when he appeared before the committee in August 2016. Even he couldn't give a satisfactory answer as to why regional petrol prices are so much higher. It in fact seems to be one of the seven wonders of the world. There have been inquiries into this that have also not got to the bottom of why, which is why the royal commission needs to investigate this as well. People living in regional Australia, bringing up families, should not be gouged simply because of where they live. The examples I have mentioned only skim the surface, but they do point to systemic problems. The behaviour of both threaten many small and medium-sized businesses in my community, because petrol is a serious cost input—and also if they are having to negotiate with the major supermarkets. I ask this House to take the lead on ensuring true and fair competition to support the aspirations of the largest employer of Australians—the small business sector—and to stop the rip-offs occurring at the petrol bowser for people living in regional Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Is the motion seconded? Mr Christensen 230485 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 13:10 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The member for Page is quite right to raise the issue of competition policy. It's a significant concern for the whole Australian community. But, when he talks about issues affecting regional areas, I must say we feel that pain too up in the far north: in my electorate areas of Darwin and Palmerstone, but also further out into the Territory's regional areas in the member for Lingiari's electorate. We see the ramifications of market concentration. We see the effect of a lack of competition and higher retail margins that often do lead to significantly higher fuel prices and, in some cases, as the member for Page mentioned, outright gouging by shameless operators. I've seen it myself. When you're down south and you get back home to the Territory, you are paying 20c to 30c a litre more for fuel. This affects Territorians; it affects Australians around this country every day. It also impacts on businesses. I do understand why some in the Territory, including in my electorate, and in other areas of regional Australia allege collusion. I understand that. I understand why the member for Page is so frustrated, as there have been many inquiries and many reports into this. I will offer that I think part of the problem is that resources have been stripped out of the ACCC, and that's a problem, but I do also want to provide some information about the way forward. Currently, small businesses are less likely to take up private litigation against anticompetitive behaviour. This is because big businesses have deep pockets, obviously, and armies of lawyers, so the risk of a small business being bankrupted by legal fees is a significant disincentive to taking action against anticompetitive conduct. Labor's small business access to justice policy will restore the balance between small and large businesses by letting a small business request a 'no adverse costs order' early in a private court case regarding these abuses of market power. If the judge decides the case has merit, the small business will not have to pay the big business' legal costs. Of course, we can't really rely solely on private litigation. The government should also back Labor's comprehensive suite of measures to create a stronger competition watchdog with the ACCC. Although the government has matched Labor's commitment to increase penalties under the Australian Consumer Law, it should also adopt our policy to adopt higher penalties for anticompetitive behaviour. It should match our commitment to effectively double the ACCC's litigation budget—an increase of $24.5 million a year—so that the watchdog can take on more cases of anticompetitive conduct to court. In my electorate, and I'm sure in other regional members' electorates, we hear again and again: 'The ACCC is a toothless tiger. They can't do anything.' Yes, the ACCC is a toothless tiger if it hasn't got any teeth. If we're to put some resources back into the ACCC, it will have more teeth and it will be able to bite and cause the pain that we need to see in some of these unscrupulous companies that are making life difficult, particularly for people in regional areas. Labor has committed to giving the watchdog a completely independent market studies function so that it can explore public interest issues such as pricing discrepancies and increased market concentration. This does stand—and I understand why the member for Page is so frustrated—in stark contrast to the current government's position of sitting on its hands until the competition issue is at crisis levels and the minister needs to request a market study. On this side, we have committed to ensuring courts apply for higher penalties for conduct that targets disadvantaged Australians and to prioritise such investigations. Many of these are in regional and rural areas. In addition, Labor is driving a better deal to put more money back into the pockets of car owners and to give independent repairers a boost. That's part of a suite of things that we are doing on this side to help people in regional and rural Australia. 13:15 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson I'm very pleased to support this motion from the member for Page, talking about the disparity between petrol prices between regional cities and capital, or metropolitan, cities and unfair market power by the major retailers. The cost of fuel is a significant portion of most Aussie family budgets, but in regional, rural and remote communities it's not only a higher cost; it is actually an unavoidable cost. Regional families face a triple whammy when it comes to petrol. They don't have public transport options available to them like in the big cities; they're forced through sheer geography to drive more kilometres; and they have to pay more per litre of petrol than their city counterparts. The disparity between a litre of petrol in Brisbane and a litre of petrol in North Queensland is often enormous, I've got to tell you. I note, in particular, there has been major price discrimination in the past week—the last few weeks, actually—when capital city fuel prices are compared with regional prices. The disparity has come down to a few cents in the past week, but this gap should have actually closed by more and it should have closed sooner. You can't tell me that it's reasonable to have a price discrepancy of 30c or 40c for several weeks. North Queenslanders have been fed a number of excuses as to why they have to pay more for fuel than their city cousins. We're variously told that it costs more to freight to regional centres; there is not much turnover of the commodity; costs are higher for country servos; or there's not as much competition. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission produced a report on the Cairns petrol market which found that significantly higher prices were due to lower levels of competition, lower sales volumes, distance and locations factors, and lower convenience store sales. But it also noted that higher costs were due to higher profits. If higher profits are achieved in a market where there is insufficient competition, it smacks of more than just a lack of competition; it's price gouging. The report notes that there is a lack of competition in Cairns. It also found that regional towns like Ayr in the Burdekin have lower prices despite the lack of competition. I had a long talk last week with the chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Rod Sims. He acknowledged that the situation with regional fuel prices was peculiar and not easily explained. That's only if you try to explain the discrimination through input costs and economic factors. It could be explained, if you consider the possibility of less noble influences, by the misuse of market power, unconscionable conduct and the use of unfair contract terms by large supermarket chains. I believe it's time for the federal government to order an investigation into these supermarket chains and these big retailers—Woolworths, Coles and Aldi—and in particular their impact on the fuel market. I support the member for Page on his motion that calls on the government to request the Governor-General to establish a royal commission into supermarket and petrol retailers. Such a commission should consider business practices, conduct and culture of organisations with regard to misuse of market power, unfair contract terms, pricing, unconscionable conduct and the like. The market has been allowed to evolve in the hope that a free market will deliver the best outcome for all, but that actually has not proven to be the case. The best outcomes are being delivered to a select few in our nation and some ordinary outcomes are being delivered for families and for motorists outside of capital cities. For regional families, we are receiving the rough end of the pineapple every time we bend over to fill the tank. I have formed a firm view that, if a company is going to sell a product for one price in Sydney, it should sell that product for the same price whether it be in Mackay, Townsville, Bowen, the Burdekin, the Whitsundays or any community around the nation. At the very least, it should be the same price with a reasonable extra charge for freight. We already have such a system in place for electricity, although North Queensland business customers still cop the pineapple from the Queensland Labor government, but for residential premises it's the same price right across the state. We have the same system for telecommunicates packages: phones, mobile costs, data. If a supermarket can sell milk for the same price everywhere, it can sell petrol for the same price everywhere, too. The fuel industry has had more than ample opportunity to clean up its act. The time has passed for fair play on a voluntary basis—or whatever sort of self-regulated codes they're going to come up with. So I've got to say that I join the member for Page and other members of the Nationals and others in this Chamber to urge our government to intervene to ensure that regional, rural and remote families are not treated like second-class citizens just because they don't live two minutes from a tram stop in Melbourne. 13:20 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to share the concerns expressed by the member for Page, and I thank the member for this motion. I recognise that petrol prices are predominantly dictated to us by global oil markets, over which the Australian government has little control, and I also recognise that the government relies upon the fuel excise tax to fund the maintenance of our federal roads and infrastructure. But, as the member for Page rightly points out, there is one area in which the government certainly can act, and that is to enforce appropriate competition policy. I feel, as a member with a rural electorate, that we pay a rural petrol tax. I recognise that the cost of petrol is likely to increase somewhat to account for transportation costs, and further if it is shipped. But I also recognise there are higher operational costs in rural and regional Australia to account for this as well, and we are paying an extraordinary amount extra, above what metropolitan Australians are paying. There are reasonable grounds to suspect that there is anticompetitive behaviour occurring, and, as such, collusion or abuse of market power between regional and rural Australia and metropolitan Australia, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission should step in. Farmers, growers and other rural Australians have long known that Coles and Woolworths have sought to squeeze Australia's agricultural supply chains in the pursuit of short-term profit at the cost of the long-term viability and sustainability of agricultural production for the domestic markets in this country. It's never completely clear whether anticompetitive behaviour, as such, as a tactic—collusion—is occurring or not. But what is clear is that there is tacit complicity in the tactics that the Coles and Woolworths giants use against their agricultural suppliers. The way that they relentlessly squeeze our agricultural producers is unconscionable. It is this systemic undermining of the viability of Australia's agricultural production that I believe warrants further investigation. The ACCC undertook a valuable investigation into the issue in 2008, producing a report on the competitiveness of retail prices for standard groceries. I would urge every member in this place to read the book Supermarket Monsters by Malcolm Knox; it is a sobering read, as to the price of the dominance of Coles and Woolworths, the two mega-retailers in Australia. In hardware, in petrol, in general merchandise, in liquor and, above all, in groceries, Coles and Woolworths jointly rule Australia's retail landscape. On average, every man, woman and child spends $100 each per week in their outlets. Knox reveals in his book the intimidating tactics of this duopoly. They take our farmers, our food producers, right to the edge. They don't want to kill them off; they just want to take them right to the edge, where they're on their knees, and then, when they think that they're on their knees, they'll take them even further. I know so many producers who say, 'I just can't afford to deal with the duopoly. I'd rather forgo production than have to deal with such difficult circumstances, where, if there's a special on, it's expected that the producer will wear the cost, over and over again.' So, quickly: firstly, I recommend that the ACCC, as a matter of urgency, refresh their 10-year-old inquiry, but also provide specific recommendations on what regulations the government needs to implement to improve the operation of free and fair competition in domestic markets for agricultural products. Let's be clear: no other nation in the world has the concentration of our supermarket duopoly, and it affects our farmers more than anyone. Secondly, the ACCC desperately needs divestiture powers—that is, the power to break up uncompetitive or market-power-abusing monopolies and duopolies. I know the government has talked about this with respect to power companies. It has been the position of Centre Alliance for quite some time that we should have this more broadly across the scope. We believe that those powers should lie with the Federal Court, because ultimately we have a duopoly system, and the fines that now happen with the courts are just part of doing business when companies—Coles and Woolworths, in particular—are found to be anticompetitive. It's just a cost of them doing business. We need to have the power of courts to break them up so that their behaviour will change. I commend the member for this motion. We need to talk more about this in this place. Debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 13:25 to 16:00 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 148 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Hobart: Housing Affordability 148 16:00 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison According to the latest Rental Affordability Index, which came out last week, Hobart is now the least affordable city in Australia for renters. That's dreadful news because of the thousands of people who are in precarious housing situations, sleeping rough, couch surfing and in unstable short-term accommodation. But it's also dreadful news because, sadly, a lot of this is preventable, because the housing crisis in greater Hobart is, in large part, due to a series of policy failures by state and federal governments. For instance, the state government has failed to properly invest in affordable housing such as crisis accommodation, Housing Tasmania properties and supported accommodation for people with specific needs. And they haven't reined in short-term accommodation like Airbnb, instead just playing catch-up after a few bad headlines. But it's too little too late. The current and former federal governments have failed as well. For example, there has been no reform on negative gearing nor on the capital gains tax discount, both of which skew the market in favour of wealthy investors. Moreover, there's been no increase to Commonwealth rent assistance. The federal government really must also waive Tasmania's public housing debt, which is costing us $15 million a year in interest payments alone. Everyone has a right to safe, secure and affordable housing. The state and federal governments both need to step up and do much better. Queensland: Bushfires 148 16:02 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Blistering heatwave conditions continue across Queensland. For more than a week, temperatures have soared past 40 degrees in parts of the state, while hot, dry, westerly winds have blasted coastal districts. This situation, combined with tinder-dry vegetation, has created some of the most extreme—indeed, catastrophic—fire conditions recorded in the state of Queensland. There are around 100 fires still burning. Some are so intense and fast moving that ancient rainforests, usually immune to the ravages of fire, are themselves ablaze. The losses to property, livestock and the environment are appalling, and, most tragically, one young life has been lost. Whole communities will survive, nevertheless, thanks to the superhuman efforts of our fire and emergency services volunteers and professionals. In just one incident, reported by helicopter crews airlifting families from a mountain top, rural firefighters chose to stay, despite being surrounded by a ring of fire—an inferno, if you like—rather than be evacuated. It's extraordinary stuff. Safety is paramount, and firefighters must never take unacceptable risks. But their courage and tenacity need to be commended at the highest of levels. Our heartfelt thanks to them. Townsville: Employment 148 16:03 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I am outraged by the selfishness of this LNP government. Right now, the LNP members opposite care far more about their own jobs than about creating real jobs in Townsville. Under the LNP, unemployment has almost doubled. As Townsville's unemployment was reaching record-high levels, families were leaving in droves to find jobs elsewhere. Some people in Townsville are still struggling to put food on the table, pay their electricity bills and pay for petrol and the rising cost of living—all because of the cuts made by the now Prime Minister when he was the Treasurer. Prime Minister Scott Morrison is the architect of the massive cuts that have impacted on the people of Townsville. Because of the chaos and cuts being delivered by this LNP government, the going has got very tough for some workers, businesses and pensioners. The Prime Minister is the architect behind the $9 million cuts to the Townsville Hospital and Health Service—that's 25 nursing positions gone. Prime Minister Scott Morrison is the architect behind the $14.8 million cuts to Townsville schools—one in three teaching positions gone. The Prime Minister is the architect behind the $36 million cut to JCU and $38 million in cuts to Central Queensland University—that's 19 jobs gone from JCU. If Townsville is to get jobs and vital funding for family concerns like health, education and assistance in the cost of living then Townsville needs a Labor government that will deliver jobs for Townsville and not cuts and chaos. Calare Electorate: Telecommunications 148 16:05 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Communications and connectivity are vital to the prosperity and growth of country communities. Mobile black spots are a handbrake on decentralisation and regional business activity, and they are dangerous in an emergency. The township of Wattle Flat near Bathurst has little to no access to telecommunications, which has had an enormous impact on its residents. There are many examples provided to me by the community, including lack of adequate coverage for emergency services during last year's fire season and residents being unable to work from home or run businesses. The community is pushing hard for a new mobile phone tower, which I am supporting. We now have an opportunity to get funding for this location through round 4 of the federal government's Mobile Black Spot Program. However, the issue is that Telstra and the other telcos need to play their part and show some interest in sites such as Wattle Flat. Without the telcos playing a role and submitting a funding application, there is no chance of securing a tower. The whole aim of the Mobile Black Spot Program is for the government to partner with telcos in order to clean up these black spots. So, I have written to all three CEOs of the telcos—that is, Telstra, Vodafone and Optus—and I've urged them to put an application in for Wattle Flat. I'm renewing that call today and ask the telcos to come to the party and make an application so that Wattle Flat can finally secure better communications. Oxley Electorate: Boomerang Bags 149 16:07 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Over the weekend I was proud to attend the Oxley CWA Christmas bake-off, which also hosted the local Oxley Boomerang Bags association, headed up by Jennifer Bennetts—and I'm holding up a bag in the chamber today. Boomerang Bags are a not-for-profit started on the Gold Coast as a means of providing a sustainable alternative to plastic bags. Over time the movement has grown to an estimated 800 communities across the world, with more than 200,000 bags made and at least 62,000 kilos of landfill waste diverted. The bags are given away or sold to friends, family, colleagues and strangers. They create a platform to start conversations, upcycle materials and work towards shifting society's throwaway mentality to a more sustainable one. In Oxley, our 30-plus regular volunteers have sewn over 1,000 sustainable bags for the community to use and re-use—it just started in May this year. The plastic bag ban prompted the local Oxley group to provide an alternative while spreading awareness and advocating a cultural shift in our attitudes towards waste. These bags have been almost completely made from donated and upcycled fabrics such as used linen and tablecloths, and the majority are even given away for free. This week I'll be proudly presenting the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with their own Oxley Boomerang Bags for use at Christmas time. But, for the many volunteers, I want to give them a big shout-out and thank them for their great service to our community. My congratulations to everyone involved with the Oxley Boomerang Bags group: to Jennifer, Marilyn and all the volunteers. Diabetes 149 16:08 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I want to take this opportunity to speak about one of the most common chronic childhood conditions, type 1 diabetes. It is a lifelong autoimmune disease that is usually diagnosed in childhood. I'm encouraged to speak in the Federation Chamber today by Lilly, whom I've had the privilege of meeting a few times both here in the House as part of the Kids in the House initiative and back home in the Riverland in South Australia. Lilly was four years old when she was diagnosed, and it's changed her world. I actually can't say anything more powerful than what Lilly's mum Chelsea wrote to me about recently: the need for a cure. In Chelsea's words: As a mother watching her child suffer with this horrible disease, I find there is nothing more important I can do than to stand up and make the plea for help and support in finding a cure for the disease that has stolen my daughter's carefree life and replaced it with a life of carb counting, insulin injections and/or pumping and constant monitoring. I could go on forever about the way Type 1 has changed Lily's life, all of which break my heart. If I were to take this burden off her and take it on myself, I would do it in a heartbeat, but sadly this isn't an option. The only thing I can do for Lilly is to try and find a cure. The Australian Clinical Research Network is a collaborative initiative dedicated to positively impacting the lives of people with type 1 diabetes through accelerating clinical research for the cure, treatment and prevention of type 1 diabetes. Current government funding for the Clinical Research Network ends in June next year. I stand with Chelsea and Lilly in wanting to see funding continue for this important initiative. Australian Training Awards 149 16:10 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Well done to all the Territorians named as finalists in the recent Australian Training Awards. The NT finalists were, for Australian Apprentice of the Year, Nathan Powell; Vocational Student of the Year, Kaylee Appleyard; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Student of the Year, Sonny Bo-Neil Malmerin-Fejo; School-Based Apprentice of the Year, Tallulah Jayne-Ormsby; VET Teacher/Trainer of the Year, Chrissy Zelley; and Medium Employer of the Year, NEC Australia, NT branch. Huge congratulations go to Kimberly Brewster, who took out the top gong, the Australian Apprentice (Trainee) of the Year Award. Kimberly has an inspiring story. Having finished year 12 just before the birth of her first child, she took some time to focus on motherhood but then started her traineeship program with host company ConocoPhillips. She enrolled at CDU to complete a certificate III in business administration. Kimberly now provides the sole administrative support for 200 offshore workers with ConocoPhillips, is completing her certificate III in business administration and, most importantly, I guess, is the mum of two young children. I wish Kimberly all the very best for what I'm sure will be a very successful career, and once again I congratulate all the NT finalists—Territory proud. Well done to all the finalists, and Kimberly Brewster. Grey Electorate: Local Government 150 16:11 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey We've just come through council elections in South Australia, with 27 of my councils participating. I thank all of those who participated—those who were elected for the first time, those who were returned and those who were unsuccessful. They have, collectively, given thousands of hours to their individual communities. Local council is an embodiment of the high levels of volunteerism alive in our communities, and, at every level, volunteerism is what makes our communities work. On the bright side, I add as a bit of a plug for my home town of Kimba that, at 81 per cent, it topped the turnout for the council elections. Kimba was also just named by Bond University as the happiest and friendliest town in Australia, with the highest level of volunteers. Sadly, since the time of the election, two of my immediately retiring mayors have passed away: Roger Nield of Cleve; and Robert Starr of Franklin Harbour, in Cowell. I attended Robert's funeral last Friday, and it was a very moving event. These two gentlemen gave to the very last. They were volunteers of the first order in their communities. It didn't matter how sick they were; they kept fronting up, serving their communities right to the end. I thank them for their service and I offer my commiserations to their families. Aged Care 150 16:13 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston On Friday, I met with Prith Chakravarti, who lives in one of Adelaide's southern suburbs. I was very disappointed to learn that Prith had been approved for a level 3 home care package in 2016. He was reassessed in 2018 and once again told that he needed a level 3 home care package. But, disappointingly, he still has not been able to access the money that goes along with this assessment. He is waiting. He lives alone and he needs care. As his needs have increased, he has had to cut back to make his current level 2 package work for him, to see him through until he receives the money that is associated with his approved level 3 package. The increase in transport costs associated with doctors' appointments and visits to his wife, who is in a nursing home, has forced him to cut back on a number of other things, including cancelling his Meals on Wheels. Prith also needs proper nursing care, but he is only able to receive limited domestic care. A level 3 package would provide him with the extra funding he needs to maintain these basic requirements. Indeed, the assessment identified that he needs this level of support. He has been told that there is an issue with Treasury: Treasury will not release the money for his package. He joins more than 121,000 people waiting for a home aged-care package. Punde, Dr Sameer 150 16:15 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan The coalition has a proud record of establishing and caring for Australia's marine parks—the true wonders of nature. Today I rise to congratulate a fellow THECA committee member in my electorate, Sameer Punde, who was recently awarded a doctorate by the University of Queensland. Mr Punde's thesis, Decision modelling and the management of Australian marine parks, details two distinct challenges to managing fish numbers in marine parks in Queensland and Victoria. Through Sameer's research, he established—without surprise—that illegal recreational fishing does indeed deplete fish stocks in marine parks, where fishing is excluded. Recreational fishing may often be thought of as a 'quick cast' from the jetty, but, through Sameer's work, it is evident that the effect on fish stocks is anything but small. The second challenge in our expansive marine parks are the decisions by rangers as to where and when they patrol. As members will know, the length and breadth of Australia's marine parks are often larger than some European countries. With size being a challenge, Sameer developed a tool which can be used as a predictive system. By predicting where fish can and will be found, Sameer hopes that this tool will assist rangers in their efforts. Congratulations, Dr Sameer Punde, and the very best for your future. Canberra Electorate: Local Sporting Champions 150 16:16 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Canberra lays claim to producing some of the world's greatest sporting stars. This year I have had the honour of presenting 63 awards to our local sporting champions. I know we will be seeing many of these names up in the bright lights on the world stage before too long. Keep an eye out for Angus Alford, Chloe Arnold, Madison Arnold, Joshua Arnold, Marcus Bateup, Jeremy Blick, Lily Bray, Georgia Bryant, Sophira Bryen, Oliver Bryson, Noah Budd, Kai Calloway, Matthew Cameron, Tara Cannon, Nicholas Coghill, Lachlan Cunanan, Max Curry, Patrick Dunn, Sean Edwards, Zoe Evans, Joshua Grovenor, Poppy Hancox, Lachlan Hope, Chloe Ives, Lucy Jalland, Sophie Jung, Georgia Keane, Kiara Keane, Jordyn Kearney, David Kidd, Clare Kwiatkowski, Noah Le Lievre, Chandler Leydon, Taine Lockton, Olivia Malone, Samuel Manton, Samantha Mcalister-Scott, Alexander Mcdonald, James Micallef, Eloise Millington, Laura Monterosso, Ryan Navin, Ada Nebauer, Emily O'Brien, Benjamin Paton, Gabrielle Petersen, Riley Proudfoot, Rebecca Rainey, Zachary Rauter, Alexander Sangah, Jonny Sheridan, Catherine Smith, Charlie Snow, Mitchell Thomas, Lauren Thomas, Ally Thornton, Georgia Tongs, Sofiya Vakar, Minski Wade Quayle, Dylan White, Georgia Willey, Eric Wong and Lucia Zarak. Diabetes 151 16:18 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde As National Diabetes Awareness Month 2018 comes to a close, I would like to take this opportunity to commend and recognise a constituent in my electorate of Forde, Josie Hingst, who was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at age 5. I first had the pleasure of meeting Josie at St Joseph's Tobruk Memorial School in Beenleigh when she was only in grade 5. Josie, now 17, has just graduated from Calvary Christian College and has been working as an ambassador for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, in my electorate, for the last few years, and she has done an outstanding job. Her mother Lisa is also a JDRF advocate, providing support, resources, education and a helping hand to parents of children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. I know they have also taken the opportunity to visit Parliament House on several occasions. Another local I would like to recognise is Melinda Hartley, the proud mother of twins, Zephaniah and Charlotte, who has also been heavily involved in the local community this year as an advocate for JDRF in my electorate but also more widely around the Logan area. The news last week that we funded three glucose monitoring devices for an additional 37,000 eligible Australians has been very well received by those advocates. Both Lisa and Melinda are only able to afford the continuous glucose monitoring devices for their kids as a result of the subsidy, and I'm sure many others will also benefit. (Time expired) Martin, Mr Billy 151 16:20 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam When fires were menacing the outskirts of Gracemere, near Rockhampton, last week, a storm hit the Illawarra region, dumping more than 100 millimetres of rain across the region in a single day. It was confirmed as the wettest November day in New South Wales for well over 25 years. The storm brought flash flooding and gale-force winds. Across the state, SES crews attended to more than 1,000 jobs. Typically, State Emergency Service volunteers spend their time supporting the community in times of emergency. However, last week they were mourning the loss of one of their own. Billy Martin, from Albion Park, a Shellharbour unit member, died while selflessly serving the Illawarra community during last Wednesday's severe storm. He was with his crew at Flinders, removing a fallen tree, when he collapsed. Although CPR was administered, he could not be revived. Billy was only 39 years old, and he was a valued member of the SES Shellharbour unit. He was well loved by the unit and within his broader community. My thoughts, and I'm sure the thoughts of every member in this place, are with his family and friends as well as the wider tight-knit SES community, who in times of need put their lives on the line to ensure that we can all be safe. Diabetes 151 16:21 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I want to speak about the coalition's recent announcement that we'll be investing $100 million to further help people with type 1 diabetes. This is fantastic news. The additional funding will expand free access to life-saving glucose-monitoring devices to over 37,000 eligible people with type 1 diabetes, including pregnant women, children and more adults. I'm proud to be part of this government that recognises the need to support people with type 1 diabetes and their families. I personally know many families in my electorate affected by type 1 diabetes who stand to benefit from this support. Thanks to this government's investment, they will achieve savings of up to $7,000 a year. I want to thank my constituents who have shared their personal experiences with type 1 diabetes with me. I've met with type 1 diabetes patients and their parents, relatives and friends, who've opened my eyes to how difficult living with this condition can be. This year I've met with representatives from the DANII Foundation and JDRF Australia regarding continuous glucose-monitoring systems, including the FreeStyle Libre system. I thank the Minister for Health for meeting with them as well as heeding their calls for further funding. It's great to see that fully subsidised access to these CGM devices will be expanded from 1 March next year to people with type 1 diabetes, who will need it most. I'm pleased to see that most of the people will have access to the glucose-monitoring system, and I thank everyone involved for that. Minister for Human Services and Digital Transformation 152 16:23 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley It's absolutely staggering to witness the brazen denigration of hardworking public servants by ministers in this government. The minister in question in this instance is the Minister for Human Services and Digital Transformation, Michael Keenan. Under this government, we have seen jobs in Centrelink cut, the use of contractors up, phone call delays up and complaints up. You would think that that climate of dissatisfaction would prompt a rethink. Maybe you'd restore staff numbers. No. Maybe you'd stem contractor numbers. No. Maybe you'd work with the Public Service to resolve these issues. No again. Instead we've seen a doubling down on the justification for using contractors and a fudging of the call number definition to make it look like fewer calls are coming in. Worse, when the minister announces the increased use of contractors, he dresses these up as extra jobs. He disparages the public servants working for the department and he publicly backs his claims about the use of contractors by citing a consultant report that says that contractors are more efficient than public servants. When called to release that report, he hides behind cabinet-in-confidence. He doesn't sit with the Centrelink staff to work these issues out. He has denigrated them. Those call staff have received abuse from the public. He should apologise to Centrelink staff for what he has said and done. (Time expired) Hall, the Hon. Raymond Steele 152 16:24 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby Today I would like to recognise a remarkable South Australian who has served the public at both the state and the federal level. Raymond Steele Hall was born at Balaklava on 30 November 1928. On Friday he celebrated his 90th birthday, and I want to pass on my very best wishes to Mr Hall. Mr Hall reached another significant milestone this year. It was the 50th anniversary of his becoming Premier of South Australia in 1968. Mr Hall was first elected to the House of Assembly in 1959. He became opposition leader in 1966 and formed government in 1968. One of the most significant things he did as Premier was something that was very brave: he reformed the electoral system in South Australia, which had produced some unfair and inequitable outcomes. Though it was to the great detriment of his government, he did it because it was the decent, honest and right thing to do. Mr Hall later went on to represent South Australia in the Australian Senate. Most significantly for me, in 1981 he was elected to the seat of Boothby. I was incredibly proud to be elected to the seat of Boothby in 2016, 35 years after he was elected, and my success was supported by Mr Hall, his wife, Joan—a former state member of parliament and minister herself—and their children, Ben and Alexia. I extend my sincere thanks and congratulations to Mr Hall and the entire Hall family on these very significant milestones. Hanukkah 152 16:26 Mr BURKE DYW Watson On behalf of federal Labor, I extend my best wishes to Jewish people in Australia and around the world on the occasion of Hanukkah. Hanukkah is a celebration of the powerful liberation story in which the Maccabeans freed the Jewish people from domination and rededicated the second temple in Jerusalem. Over eight days, families, friends and communities gather to celebrate. They sing Hanukkah songs, hold public candle-lighting events and, for the children, play the traditional Hanukkah game dreidel. The lighting of a candle on the menorah, an eight-branched candelabrum, each night commemorates the story of the oil lamp that burned for eight days despite only having enough oil to burn for one. Hanukkah is a celebration of hope, freedom and victory. It's an opportunity for us to celebrate our shared values and be thankful for the strong bonds of unity we have formed as a modern multicultural country. As the candles are lit this season, I wish you all a happy and prosperous festival of lights. National Disability Insurance Scheme 152 16:27 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Today we celebrate International Day of People with Disability. The theme for this year is 'empowering persons with disabilities and ensuring inclusiveness and equality'. We're currently undergoing the greatest transition for people living with disability in Australia since Federation, in the form of the rollout of the NDIS. Although not without challenges, the NDIS is empowering people with disability all over Australia to make decisions about the support they receive and to participate more fully in all aspects of our society. I'm determined to ensure that people with disability and their carers in my electorate are fully informed and included in the January 2019 local rollout of the NDIS. I want to help empower them make the most of this once-in-a-generation lifetime change. I therefore have held three NDIS forums in Fisher with representatives of the NDIA. These forums, including one tailored specifically for potential service providers, have given my constituents the information they need and the opportunity to ask questions. I'll be holding another of these forums in January, as the rollout gets underway, to address any emerging issues, gather feedback on the ongoing process and ensure all of my constituents remain fully engaged. I encourage anyone in Fisher who has further questions about the NDIS to contact my office and register their interest in taking part in this generational change. Mining 153 16:29 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle There's certainly no love lost for Adani in Newcastle and the Hunter region. It's been one of those rare issues where the environmental movement, the local miners, the mining industry and, indeed, the Port of Newcastle are as one in their opposition to the Adani mine. The reality, of course, is that the Adani mine will create very few new jobs in Queensland. Indeed, in my region it looks much more like, possibly, a transfer of existing jobs out of one region and into another. Unlike members opposite, Labor has never disputed the science of climate change. Renewables are indeed our future and they are already much cheaper than coal, yet there is the anti-science position the government's been waging in the form of a relentless war on climate action and renewable energies since the day they came to power. We see it played out in preselection bouts now and we see that those who are being rewarded and protected are amongst those leading the charge on climate change denial for the government. I remain enormously sceptical about whether the latest Adani plan could ever proceed. The market's already spoken and not a single company's willing to back them. Why should we? Les Twentyman Foundation 153 16:30 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe A few weeks back, I had the great pleasure of being with Les Twentyman at Berwick Secondary College. I've been working with Les for some time regarding the Les Twentyman Foundation programs, which target high-risk students who are overcoming extreme personal issues. The aim of this program is to keep kids in schools, give them hope and build resilience. I really want to thank Wayne Owens, the CEO of the Les Twentyman Foundation. We were joined by Sarah Ryan, manager of the foundation; Dante and Adelle, Berwick college students; Daniel Lipscombe, a Les Twentyman youth worker who has the job of being at the school for the next three years; and James Doble, Acting Principal at Berwick Secondary College. I first became aware of this program when Les appeared before the federal inquiry for the report No one teaches you to become an Australian and I was blown away by the foundation. Working with the foundation and the government, I've secured $1.5 million of federal funding over three years. Locally, that means Berwick Secondary College and Pakenham Secondary College will have a full-time Les Twentyman youth worker for the next three years, and other schools will also benefit from this. To me, this is one of the best intervention programs in schools across the country. Well done, Les, and well done to all of your team at the foundation. Fuel Security 153 16:32 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Australia has three weeks of fuel. Think about that. We live in a period of growing regional instability and geopolitical uncertainty. Relations are tense between the major powers—the US, Russia and China—and there are ongoing conflicts across the Middle East and Asia Minor. We can take nothing for granted. We have enough fuel to keep our country going for just three weeks and then the nation simply stops. It is a national security disaster waiting to happen. Our international obligations mandate that we should have enough fuel in this place to keep us going for at least three months. We are meeting one-quarter of our international obligations. This government prides itself on national security credentials, but we have a clear and present national security threat right in front of us that this government does nothing about. In fact, the policies of this government are directly responsible for the fuel and national security threat we now face. Today, I attended the launch of a research report, Australia's fuel security: running on empty, commissioned by the Maritime Union of Australia—doing the job the government should be doing. It is a must-read for anyone claiming to be interested in national security. It cannot be ignored. Key to it is rebuilding an Australian maritime fleet that we can all be proud of and not relying on foreign vessels and foreign crews. O'Connor Electorate: Mobile Black Spot Program 153 16:33 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to update the House on the government's Mobile Black Spot Program, which has delivered real results for communities in my electorate of O'Connor. Seventy-four towers have been delivered, with a further 11 due for completion by June 2019. Three towers in the south-west of my electorate became frustrated due to the complexities of negotiating lease agreements at Napier and obtaining suitable sites and planning approvals at Ocean Beach and Salmon Holes. Napier is a small community north of Albany with no mobile phone coverage. The community was ravaged by fire in May, resulting in the loss of property, but, thankfully, no lives. The Napier Progress Association, together with Chief Fire Control Officer Brett Smoker, called a meeting in July, which effectively resolved the circumstances which had frustrated the tower. I'm now pleased to report that the Napier tower is forecast to be delivered in 2019. The Ocean Beach tower—frustrated due to difficulties in acquiring a suitable location on WA government land, and planning approvals—has also made progress. An alternative site has been identified which will provide good coverage to residents living at Ocean Beach as well as the caravan park and the popular William Bay tourist area. Subject to approvals, the base station is expected to be completed by June 2019. There is only one tower in my electorate that still requires a solution, and that is Salmon Holes. On average, two people per year have lost their lives at this notorious fishing spot. I have met with local emergency services volunteers who are desperate to find a solution, and I will continue to work hard on this until Salmon Holes has mobile phone coverage. Dobell Electorate: Merchant Mariners Memorial Service 154 16:35 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell On Saturday, I was privileged to join the annual memorial service for merchant mariners lost in time of war at the merchant navy memorial at Norah Head on the Central Coast. Today's Australians are gradually learning about the vital role performed by merchant mariners during time of war, and the Central Coast has a special significance in the defence history of Australia. The sinking of the MV Nimbin some 12 kilometres off Norah Head on 5 December 1940, and the lifeboat arrival of 25 survivors from the ill-fated Iron Chieftain on the beach at North Entrance on the morning of 5 June 1942, wrote the coast into Australian history. The MV Nimbin and the SS Iron Chieftain were two of the 54 merchant ships attacked in Australian waters during World War II, of which 38 were sunk. About 14,000 Australian merchant mariners served during World War II. The need for wartime secrecy prevented the publication of the names and locations of shipping casualties. I would like to acknowledge a number of community groups and individuals who participated in the service: the Norah Head Lighthouse Reserve Trust, represented by Neil Rose; Father Peter Middleton of the Mission to Seafarers; Marine Rescue New South Wales; Rural Fire Service Wyong Operational Support; Dennis Outram of the MUA; the Mannering Park Sea Scouts; Soldiers Beach Surf Life Saving Club; Brackets and Jam; Toukley Pipes and Drums, and Pipe Major Duncan Lister; Aunty Bronwyn Chambers; Captain Iain Steverson; Bob Wilson and the Toukley RSL Sub Branch; Gorokan High School students Alexis and Chailend; our host, Yasmin Catley MP, member for Swansea; and MC David Harris MP, member for Wyong. Robertson Electorate: Christmas Card Competition 154 16:37 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson Every year, in my electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast, we run our annual Christmas card competition. This year was our biggest yet, with over 600 entries from local primary school students. My team and I really loved all of the entries, and we loved them so much that we decided to turn every single one into a personalised set of gift tags, as a way of saying thank you to all of those who got involved. Today I would like to really congratulate this year's winner, 12-year-old Sienna-Rose from Holy Cross Catholic Primary School. Sienna-Rose had the most beautiful watercolour design of a cockatoo at a local beach. It was an incredibly creative take on this year's theme, 'Our Christmas Day'. Well done, Sienna, on your design. Pearl McQueen from Avoca Beach Public School won second prize. Ella Baker, aged six, from Erina Heights Public School, was awarded the third prize. Congratulations to both of you on your outstanding designs. I also pay tribute to some highly commended designs by Chloe Tunnicliff, from St Philip's Christian College; Jessie Edge of Woodport Public School; Kaden Learmonth from Gosford East Public School; Lily Nguyen from Chertsey Primary School; and Taylah Scott from Woy Woy South Public School. To all of the schools that entered this year—Aspect Central Coast School, Avoca Beach Public School, Central Coast Public School, Chertsey public school, Erina Heights Public School, Ettalong Public School, Gosford East Public School, Gosford Public School, Green Point Christian College, Holgate Public School, Holy Cross Catholic Primary School, Kincumber Public School, Peats Ridge Public School, Point Clare Public School, State Patrick's Catholic Primary School, St Philip's Christian College, the Coast Christian School, Woodport Public School, Woy Woy Public School and Woy Woy South Public School: thank you for all your entries. We hope you enjoy your designs. Climate Change, Parramatta Electorate: Parramatta High School 154 16:38 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta The power and determination of young people to make change and right injustices amazes me. Last week we saw a great example, as thousands of students came out to strike for climate change action. But, closer to home, local students from Parramatta High School's Social Justice League and the Student Representative Council recently came together to support students and families at Gilgandra High School who are being affected by drought. The idea was put forward by their teacher, Helen Moore, and in September the Parramatta students raised over $1,000 at a 'Colours for the country' mufti day and sausage sizzle. They were invited to Gilgandra high to help the students there to take their minds off their struggles. As one teacher at Gilgandra put it: everyone had friends who knew of others doing it tough, and this made everyone glum. The Parra high students visited the Gilgandra school to see firsthand how the drought was affecting local families, and to provide a welcome distraction for local students doing it tough. Students from both schools took part in a range of social, sporting and cultural activities, and Parramatta high students visited some of Gilgandra's tourist attractions. Congratulations and thank you to the students at Parramatta High School and their teacher Helen Moore. You've done a great service to the students and families of Gilgandra. Your efforts are appreciated. Well done. Woolley, Mr Bruce 155 16:40 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan Fake news is cheap to produce, and too often genuine journalism is expensive. On this note, I rise to recognise Bruce Woolley, a highly respected foreign correspondent and lecturer at the University of Queensland, who recently put down his pen and announced his retirement from January next year. Bruce's contribution to the University of Queensland during these past six years follows an extensive career in journalism and media. Bruce worked extensively for the ABC and their Canadian counterpart, the CBC. He won awards from the Australian Journalists Association and the New York Festivals, including gold and silver medals as well as the Best of the Festival Grand Award. Bruce has been instrumental in improving and reporting the intercultural communication in developing countries by actually taking his students to Indonesia, Vietnam and India. Importantly, Bruce has also been assisting students in finding employment post graduation. Bruce Woolley is a strong advocate for free press and was recognised by the University of Queensland with a teaching excellence award in 2017. Bruce may not be a household name synonymous with the investigative reporting that we hear about today, but he has been an integral part of UQ's fabric and, most importantly, has helped to develop so many emerging journalists who graduated from the university. I congratulate Bruce on his career, and I know the member for Moreton joins me in wishing him the best for his future endeavours. Wade, Mr John James Joseph 155 16:41 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I take this opportunity to remember and pay tribute to John James Joseph Wade, known understandably as JJ, who died on 7 October, just shy of his 101st birthday. JJ Wade was one of the last surviving members of the legendary Rats of Tobruk, and he also fought at El Alamein in Egypt as part of Australia's 2/28th Battalion of the 9th Division. He was wounded, spent time in a military hospital and was then retrained in jungle warfare in order to fight the Japanese in New Guinea. After the war, JJ returned to the family farm at Yarloop, before shifting out of dairy and into wheat and sheep. He eventually retired in to Wattleup in the Freemantle electorate. In recent years, JJ Wade has been something of a talisman at local Anzac Day and Remembrance Day services. I first met and spoke with him at Cockburn RSL's Remembrance Day service back in 2016, and last year I paid him a visit at home to mark his 100th birthday. Even then, he was an easygoing, youthful and talkative bloke with a brilliant grin. Fundamentally an optimist, he was quoted in the newspaper as saying: Always look for the bright side if you can find one, it's no good looking on the crook side, it gets you nowhere. He made no bones about saying that war was essentially futile in all its violence, damage and waste. But, of course, he greatly valued the opportunity to remember and honour his mates and all those who served. JJ Wade was a lovely bloke. We remember and honour his life and service. As the member for Fremantle, I express my condolences to his family and his friends. Fang, Miss Lucy 155 16:43 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I would like to offer my heartiest congratulations to Lucy Fang, a student from my electorate, who has come third in the My First Speech competition. This competition, run by the Speaker, asks students around the country to give a maiden speech on a subject close to their hearts. Lucy spoke eloquently about a subject of utmost importance for the future of our younger generations—equal access to higher education. Rather than tell you about the speech, I would now like to read from it, so that her words will now appear on the parliamentary record: According to forecasts, 90% of near one million new jobs to be created within next five years will require tertiary qualifications. In today's New Economy, a country's future depends even more on the level of education and technical skills of its workforce. The higher education system should be one of merit not privilege. It is a betterment towards our whole society, not just personal gain for individuals. However, our students from remote areas and low socio-economic backgrounds remain underrepresented at universities. Researches show that indigenous people only make up 1.7% of total domestic enrolments, way below its 3% population rate. Studies have suggested that a lack of enrolment is mainly due to factors such as financial pressures, their status as a minority and their strong connection to their land. Sadly, time prevents me from reading more. (Time expired) Diabetes 156 16:44 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton In August this year children from across the country gathered in Canberra, at Parliament House, for a diabetes event called Kids in the House. This speech was intended to be given that day. However, for the first time ever parliament was actually shut down, during Liberal coup 2, and I was prevented from making this speech. As co-chair, with the member for Grey, of the Parliamentary Friends of Diabetes, I've been fortunate to gain a much greater insight into the work of organisations like JDRF that support diabetes families. JDRF is Australia's leading organisation funding type 1 diabetes research. I'd like to particularly thank them for bringing over 100 passionate type 1 diabetes advocates to Parliament House. These passionate advocates came from electorates all over Australia. They were united in their determination to rid the world of type 1 diabetes and resolute in their belief that research holds the key. Around 2,400 people are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes every year. The peak age range for diagnosis is between 10 and 14. For the children who receive a positive diagnosis, their lives will be centred around multiple daily insulin injections or a continuous infusion from an insulin pump every day. There is currently no cure for type 1 diabetes. I commend JDRF and the children and families who are committed to finding a cure to improve the lives of those with type 1 diabetes, especially the students from Graceville. While those students had an exciting day watching a coup unfold live—and they even managed to get into a press conference—it would have been nice for parliament to sit and for them to hear this speech on that day. Diabetes 156 16:46 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane My speech follows on from the contribution from the member for Moreton. I was reflecting on that visit by JDRF. On that day, I met with Maggie, a young girl from Enoggera in Brisbane who has type 1 diabetes. It was wonderful to meet with her and her mother, Leah, and her brother, Max, to discuss the work of JDRF and to hear more about how type 1 diabetes impacts so many aspects of Maggie's everyday life. She drew me a beautiful picture with coloured pencils, which is still displayed in my office today. I was looking at it just last week, thinking about Maggie and reflecting on the recent announcement that our government is expanding funding for free glucose-monitoring devices. The additional $100 million in funding from the government will help more kids like Maggie, as well as pregnant women and more adults with type 1 diabetes. Given people with type 1 diabetes have to be able to monitor their glucose levels day and night, this new funding reduces their stress, it improves the quality of life for both them and their families and, of course, it reduces emergency visits to hospital. In concluding, I want to make the very strong point that investments in new medicines and new devices are only able to be afforded if there is strong economic management of the budget, which is why it's so vital that this government's strong economic management continues. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 156 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Universities Funding 156 16:48 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta The government's $2.2 billion cut to universities is equivalent to 9,500 Australians missing out on a university place in 2018 and that number again in 2019. This is an unacceptable hit to Australian students, particularly the young people of Western Sydney and my electorate of Parramatta. The educational attainment gap is pronounced in Western Sydney. Among 25- to 34-year-olds, there's a 31 per cent gap between us and greater Sydney levels. We just enrol at a lesser rate. The impact of these cuts, which are effectively a student cap on the Western Sydney University, will be devastating. Universities Australia Chairwoman Margaret Gardner said the freeze amounted to a 'real cut' in funding, due to inflation, even if universities simply maintain current student numbers. 'And for universities that are still growing their student numbers to meet the needs in their local communities and regional economies, this will be an even deeper cut,' she said. Let's look at the students who attend Western Sydney University. There are just under 40,000 of them, and 21.7 per cent are of lower socioeconomic status and 60 per cent are the first in their family to attend university. Labor uncapped university places in 2009, and by 2016 an extra 220,000 students around the country had that same opportunity to go to university. This meant 63,186 additional students in New South Wales were able to get a university education, and 2,074 of the additional students were from Parramatta. Because of Labor's policies at the time, the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds was up by 55 per cent, Indigenous student numbers jumped by 89 per cent, enrolments by students with a disability more than doubled and enrolments by students from country areas had grown by 48 per cent. This government's funding cuts mean fewer students from disadvantaged backgrounds getting a tertiary education and fewer kids from Western Sydney going to university. That's why Labor has promised to abolish this government's unfair cap on student places. Almost 200,000 more Australians will benefit from Labor's policy over 12 years. Western Sydney University is a fantastic university, doing great things to try to close Western Sydney's educational attainment gap—something the government's cuts will hinder. These cuts would reduce WSU's ability to fund critical outreach programs, take part in industry-partnered programs and devote resources to government-partnered programs focused on addressing Western Sydney's pronounced educational equity gap. The flow-on effects to my community would last for years to come, not just for students unable to get a university education but also for employment, innovation and problem solving. Western Sydney University is an extraordinary place, encouraging new ways of thinking and running programs to solve problems in the community by taking the skills of the university out into the community. It has been at the forefront of stimulating innovation in Western Sydney through start-up incubator and a small- to medium-tech enterprise accelerator. If these programs were cut, it would be an incredible shame, because we're already seeing the benefits of them. It will put an end, really, to Western Sydney's ability to partner with industry and government in proven job creation programs, like, for example, Western Sydney University's co-investment with the Commonwealth in the $30 million Werrington Park Corporate Centre in 2013. Part of the suburban jobs program, this facility brings more than 400 high-value jobs to Penrith in outer Western Sydney, something incredibly important for the region, good for the local economy and good for families that benefit from these really high-skilled jobs. Western Sydney University also has strategies to prepare the labour market for digital disruption. The university initiates tests and invests in courses that support the changing labour market paradigms. The building across the road from my office is designed to become a thought hub, a place where a community can think, can share its ideas and can recognise its skills deficits and where the university can step in, as they have in many of those new courses, and provide structured training in some of the new job areas. Now is not the time to cripple our universities' ability to deliver these programs. It's a time to grow. It's a time for our best minds within universities and the community to get together and find ways to position us for the 20 years ahead. But how does a university do that when it faces the kinds of funding cuts that this government has imposed? I strongly urge the government to rethink its funding of universities. I call on the government to reverse its short-sighted, unfair cuts to universities which are closing the door of opportunity to thousands of Australians, including thousands in Western Sydney and in my electorate of Parramatta. 16:52 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Those on the opposite side once again speak with forked tongue. We've heard this all before. It is like there is a pack of Edward Scissorhands on that side of the chamber. All we hear about is cuts, cuts, cuts and cuts. It is not true; it is dishonest and misleading. Every time we hear about cuts from the opposite side, I know automatically that it is not right. Here is the absolute reality: the funding for higher education and research in 2018-19 is $17.5 billion and the following year, in 2019-20, it is $17.9 billion. Even those opposite have to recognise that that is an increase. It is not a decrease, a cut or a reduction; it has gone up. In 2020-21 it's $18.6 billion. In 2021-22 it is $19 billion. Every single year it increases. This is an increase in funding for universities; it is not a decrease. What has been put forward by the opposition is, once again, simple politics—plain and simple. We are providing record levels of funding for education and research, and it is to the advantage of our people, particularly in regional areas. The University of the Sunshine Coast and Central Queensland University have campuses in my electorate—one in Bundaberg and one at Hervey Bay—and they continue to expand and train local students. I think that is a great advantage. As someone who did a trade first and then went to university in a capital city, simply because there were no offerings locally, I think that is a great advantage for our local regional people. In fact, it's been recognised that where some of these challenges exist we have provided additional funding, such as the announcement recently of another $92.5 million to support more students at five regionally focused universities over the next four years. That's $30.2 million for the Fraser Coast and Caboolture campuses of the University of the Sunshine Coast. That sounds like more money to me! That will result in 150 bachelor places at Fraser Coast, increasing to 210 from 2020 on. They'll get an additional 468 bachelor places in Caboolture. These are all increases. There was an announcement in recent weeks for a pilot regional deal in my Hinkler electorate, between Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. I know the Fraser Coast Regional Council is having discussions with the University of the Sunshine Coast about developing a town centre that includes the university campus. There are opportunities there, across the board, for stronger regional economies and more local jobs, and I'd certainly encourage that to continue. This regional deal provides that opportunity right through the electorate. It does overlay with our very, very tough policy—I admit it is a very tough policy—around the cashless debit card. So while we are looking at social challenges on one hand, we are looking to expand our local economy on the other. This regional pilot provides the opportunity for just that to happen. As I've said to Bundaberg Regional Council and Fraser Coast, this is not a wish list; this is not a chance for them to stack up billions of dollars worth of requests. We need to ensure that we come up with reasonable projects that can be funded by all three levels of government, and that does include the Queensland Labor state government. They need to do their part, and I acknowledge that they are contributing, through their discussions, at an officials level. I look forward to seeing Jackie Trad or the Premier up in my electorate talking about what we can put together for a regional deal. But not everyone in this country can go to university, and nor should they. I think there are great advantages for those who do go and do a trade. We have put $245 million on the table for Queensland through the Skilling Australians Fund—$245 million. What did the Premier do? Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said: 'No, we don't want $245 million. We don't want to assist up to 50,000 apprentices and trainees in the Hinkler electorate and right throughout Queensland.' We need that money. We need that funding. I have an unemployment rate of above nine per cent; I have a youth unemployment rate in the Wide Bay statistical region of 28 per cent and going up. It is unacceptable. All of these kids would like an opportunity to do a trade, to do a traineeship, to be employed, to have those jobs. The stronger we can make our regional economy, the more there are of those opportunities. But how can the Queensland Premier possibly knock back $245 million of federal funding to help those types of kids who are looking for that opportunity? This is not $5 in the back of your pocket; this is a substantial investment. Queensland is one of only two states or territories across the country not to sign up to the Skilling Australians Fund. It is disgraceful. I call on the Premier to take the opportunity, and I say: 'It is not about you. It is not about the Labor government. It is about the people we represent, the opportunities we can provide for those children, including mine, who will be looking for work in the years to come.' I call on the Queensland government again to do the right thing. 16:58 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham I am very pleased to rise to support the motion moved by the member for Griffith relating to cuts to university funding. I appreciated the member for Hinkler going through the numbers. What those opposite always do is say, 'If you look from this year to that year, the number gets bigger.' They completely fail to recognise that, firstly, population increases will drive that and, secondly, there may be a thing called inflation, which means that the amount of money and the capacity to utilise that to provide spaces for students is actually decreased if you don't seriously address the funding that's required. That's exactly what the government has done. There is a $2.2 billion cut to universities across the country. The member for Hinkler talked about the University of the Sunshine Coast. I will leave that to my colleague, the member for Herbert, who I'm sure knows a great deal about regional Queensland, but I would be very, very surprised if any of us who have university campuses in our electorates have got those universities, including the University of the Sunshine Coast, saying: 'There's no cut. There's no problem. We don't have any issue with the government's funding.' I would suggest that it is exactly the opposite. In my own state, in New South Wales, universities are losing $736 million in funding. In my own seat, the University of Wollongong will lose $51 million in funding. That means that, as the new university year starts after Christmas and students start looking to enrol in university, there will be some hard decisions for those universities on the back of these funding cuts. I have to say that since this government was first elected, its investment in my university has been fairly poor. I'm very proud that, under Labor governments federally, we saw significant investment in my university that drove opportunities not only for students to study but also for our economy as a regional city to develop and grow, and some great initiatives for working with local businesses. For example, we put just over $25 million into the Sustainable Buildings Research Centre, at the University of Wollongong, which is doing excellent work on renewables—and at the end of my speech I want to talk about a little project that's a great example of that. The Australian Institute for Innovative Materials turned 10 recently, and I celebrated with them; we put $42 million into that institute. We put $35 million into the SMART Infrastructure Facility; and $31 million into the Early Start Research Institute, a great facility in the early education space. We invested in regional universities when we were in government. We have supported students, many of whom, like me, were the first in their family to have that opportunity and go to university. By contrast, under this government we have these cuts that the member for Griffith has, rightly, been so critical of. The member for Hinkler mentioned the other post-secondary sector. Technical and further education, through our TAFEs; vocational education and training, through our VET providers, particularly through apprenticeships and traineeships; and further education more broadly, where people are looking to get a second chance at learning, are critically important, but the government have cut $3 billion out of that sector over the time they have been in office. And we've seen the result of that. We've seen 140,000 fewer apprenticeships and traineeships available across the country. We now have this very rushed announcement about some sort of review of the sector, led by someone from New Zealand. But he was known as Mr Fix-It and he cut billions from the sector in New Zealand, so I can't help but think that there are more cuts on the way for the sector. In the small amount of time I have left to speak, I want to mention a group called Team UOW, a joint initiative by the University of Wollongong and TAFE students in my electorate, who competed in the Solar Decathlon Dubai, an international competition. The team designed the Desert Rose House, powered by renewable energies but also dementia friendly. The competition just wound up, and our team came second in the world. Congratulations to all of them. It was a big target because they won the last competition, but second is absolutely wonderful. 17:03 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne It is always a pleasure to talk about what those on the other side call cuts. There are words for that: sophistry and equivocation. What they're talking about are blue-sky figures. They do it in health. They do it in education. They mention a cut because, at some time in the not-too-distant past, someone on the other side promised blue-sky figures in all sorts of industries and training. We increased funding in the last budget. We are delivering an increase, from $17½ billion in 2018-19 to $19 billion in 2021-22. That is not a cut. What they are calling a cut is a smaller increase. It is really quite deceptive and misleading. You've only got to look at the actual figures to see how much funding of the higher education has grown, Mr Deputy Speaker McVeigh. We have the sixth highest spend on higher education in the OECD—that's out of 27 countries. We have, as at the end of last year, 620,000-odd higher education places that are Commonwealth supported. Between HECS, the university sector and the vocational education and training sector, there are huge supports. Regarding regional and rural education, we realise that tertiary education achievement is a lot lower in regional Australia. We have fought for it long and hard in the National Party and we recently announced a whole package. It will mean that regional and rural universities will get extra funding out of the current funding package. That amounts to over $400 million. The last addition, a $152 million package for regional student access to education, as well as another $45 million for isolated children's education, are all aimed at getting more regional and rural Australians into tertiary education. There's $28 million to fund an extra 500 additional commencing bachelor and sub-bachelor courses in regional and rural tertiary education centres. I have many of them. The University of New England, Charles Sturt University, the University of Newcastle and all the other metropolitan universities have students coming from the Lyne electorate. We have extra money in the budget: $14 million to support an additional 185 places over many years in Commonwealth supported regional study hubs. We're making education accessible. We have already announced the expansion of end-to-end medical training in undergraduate degrees across the Murray-Darling Basin. That's a massive expansion in medical education. We've got a massive expansion that's been underway for three years for nursing, physiotherapy, all the allied health disciplines and pharmacy across rural and regional Australia. We are really expanding the attainability of a tertiary education degree for regional and rural Australians. But, of those 1½ million people in higher education in the university sector, about 15 per cent don't finish, and we have a skills and trade shortage. We're bringing in people from overseas because we don't have enough technically trained people. We've just announced the Skilling Australians Fund. It will be funding with the help and the cooperation of the states, if they bother to get on board. We just heard from the member for Hinkler that Queensland are playing hardball. They're playing politics and denying the opportunity for Queensland youth to get an apprenticeship. We are backing people. We have a special rural and regional tranche of scholarships giving a wage subsidy—75 per cent for the first year, 50 per cent for the second year and 25 per cent for the third year—for people on the skills need list, and they have to be in rural and regional Australia. Whether you're going to a regional or a rural university or have a rural or a regional apprenticeship, you will realise that the Commonwealth government is supporting people who want to get into these areas of training. The other side say that we have cut funding. It's absolute nonsense. The figures are there in the budget: $17½ billion in 2018-19 through to $19 million in 2020-21— (Time expired) 17:08 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert It seems like we could be in parallel universes. Over the last couple of months, many year 12 students in my electorate of Herbert have been enrolling in university. They are enrolling into the degrees that they are passionate about in order to start their future lives. Unfortunately, many of these young people will be forced to enrol in university courses that are away from their home and away from their support systems, families and friends. Thanks to this LNP government, James Cook University has suffered a $36 million cut and Central Queensland University a $38 million cut. These cuts have resulted in 17 job losses at James Cook University, which has decimated the creative arts courses. These cuts have also resulted in Central Queensland University putting a halt on the planning to offer paramedicine and psychology degrees at CQU in Townsville. The LNP government's university cuts put structural disadvantage on regional universities that are trying to give young people in the regions the best chance of developing full-time employment in a career that they are passionate about. Nationally, the government has ripped $2.2 billion from universities, which means that 9,500 Australians will miss out on a university placement in 2018 and again in 2019. Nine out of 10 jobs created in the coming years will need a university or TAFE qualification, yet this government has ripped $2.2 billion from universities and $3 billion from the TAFE sector. So we will see fewer degrees and diploma placements. This government's short-sighted cuts will only deliver higher unemployment rates and fewer opportunities for people, particularly in rural and regional areas. To add insult to injury, the government's latest act of vandalism on our universities is to slash research funding in order to lift the cap on regional places. Not only is this another reckless and short-sighted decision, but it also rips funding out of an area that is already grossly underfunded—and that is research. Science, research and innovation funding in real terms has declined by $358 million since 2013. Labor welcomes any increase to encourage young people to study at a tertiary level; however, we do not support robbing Peter to pay Paul. If this LNP government reversed the $2.2 billion cuts to universities and uncapped places, there would be no need to slash research funding to lift the cap on regional places. Labor uncapped student places in 2009 and, by 2016, had delivered an extra 220,000 students access to a university education. Many of these students were the first in their family to attend university. When last in government, Labor also invested hundreds of millions of dollars to boost opportunity for university study in communities where graduation rates were low—and, typically, that is rural and regional areas—and it is working. Because of Labor's policies, by 2016 the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds was up by 55 per cent; Indigenous student numbers had jumped by 89 per cent; enrolments by students with disability had more than doubled; and enrolments by students from country areas had grown by 48 per cent. That is why a Shorten Labor government will once again uncap student places so that more Australians from our regions and growing suburbs get a chance at a university education. And we'll support those facing barriers with $174 million in additional funding for equity and pathway programs in areas of Australia with low graduation rates. Labor will also set up a national inquiry into post-secondary education in our first 100 days of government. This will examine every aspect of vocational and higher education systems to ensure they can best respond to the needs of Australia's economy and society. The number of Australians going to university has increased because of Labor's uncapped uni places, but the cuts and chaos inflicted on universities by the LNP means participation is uneven. Disadvantaged students remain underrepresented, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and students from regional areas like my electorate of Herbert. We want all children to get a quality education that nurtures their individual talents and prepares them for the future. Labor will always be the party that fights for and delivers proper and adequate funding for all levels of the education system. As a person who taught in the TAFE system for some time and taught trade training, I know firsthand the value of a quality TAFE education—a quality education that enables us to have the best tradespersons in our communities every day. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 I thank the member for Herbert for her contribution. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Pensions and Benefits 161 17:13 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I move: That this House: (1) recognises the commitment of the Government in support of our farming communities through all forms of hardship, including drought; (2) notes the continued resilience of our farmers in drought affected areas, and acknowledges the challenges they are continuing to face; (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 (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. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 Is the motion seconded? Mr Ramsey HWS I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr GEE 261393 This drought is biting hard right across New South Wales, Queensland and many other parts of Australia. It's hitting the communities of the Central West of New South Wales especially hard. Our farmers, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker McVeigh, are extraordinarily resilient, but many have been struggling with many different aspects of this drought. If we want our farmers to be a key source of our national success and prosperity, as they have been, we need to support them to get through it to make sure that they are here for our nation when the rains come. Helping our farming families and their communities has been a real focus of the government and, as part of the government's immediate and long-term drought response, we have committed nearly $6 billion, growing to $7 billion, in assistance, including additional funding and improvements to existing support. It's about $6 billion at the moment. It's going to grow to $7 billion. That is the biggest drought package in our nation's history. That's how important getting on top of this drought has been to this government. We need to support our country communities and our farmers to make sure that they can once again be the powerhouse of our economy, as they have been and as they will be again once the rains come. Our support and assistance measures cover a range of areas. They include providing financial assistance, investing in infrastructure and in rural and regional mental health, combating pest and weed impacts, and making information easier to access. This support to our farmers is based upon preparedness, risk management and support in times of hardship. It's not dependent on where a farmer lives or whether they're in a particular industry; it's about helping all farmers, in all parts of Australia, who are affected by drought. The Future Drought Fund will support initiatives to improve drought resilience, preparedness and recovery. The government's initial $3.9 billion up-front will provide a sustainable and ongoing source of funding for drought resilience. In time it's going to grow, and it will create a sustainable source of funding. The fund will provide grants to assist primary producers, non-government organisations and regional communities in preparing for and responding to drought. It will encourage primary producers and communities to adopt self-reliant approaches to managing exposure to drought. It will provide services and research to assist with the adoption of technology, as well as advice and infrastructure to support long-term sustainability in the event of drought. And it will enhance the public good—that is, benefits are not solely for individual farm entities. That's just one part of this wide-ranging program. Another is the Regional Investment Corporation, which is based in Orange. I was in Wellington on the weekend, and already farmers are talking about the positive impact the RIC, as it's known to its many friends, is having in the country. The loans are being written. They're talking about the great work— Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— Mr GEE 261393 that is going to occur with these funds. Right around Australia farmers are starting to talk. If the member for Hunter wants to somehow dismantle it, which he says he's going to do, not only will he be ripping jobs out of country Australia but he will be ripping a valuable source of investment and drought preparedness away from farmers, because the loans have just started to be written and they're having a very positive impact out there. The RIC received more than 340 applications for up to 32 new jobs, with 85 of those coming from the local region. If the member for Hunter wants to come into this Chamber and say, 'All of those jobs are going,' I wish his candidate for the seat of Calare all the very best. If those opposite are going to rip jobs out of all of the areas where decentralisation has occurred, I wish them all the best. To me, it's not going to be a campaign winner in country Australia, but good luck and godspeed to them. We've also got improvements to farm household allowance. That includes cash payments, obviously. The total payment for a couple is around $37,000 and, for a single person, around $22,000. We're supporting our farmers. We're going to stand shoulder to shoulder with them through these very difficult times. 17:20 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter If you are looking for a motivation lying behind the member for Calare's motion today, you just heard it at the end of his contribution. This motion is not about our farmers and the impact of a terrible drought; it is about the political survival of the member for Calare! That shone through so strongly towards the end, when he, amusingly, started to talk about the so-called Regional Investment Corporation. I was a bit intrigued by that, actually, because none of his ministers ever mention it any more—not in the House during question time, not outside on the doors. That leaves me very curious as to why ministers never ever mention the boondoggle, the pork-barrelling exercise now called the Regional Investment Corporation. I was so amused to hear the member for Calare say that his farmers in the district are championing the Regional Investment Corporation and expressing joy about the difference it's making in their lives. What a load of rubbish! As if farmers in the immediate district have somehow been beneficiaries of a corporation that is barely up and running, that has no permanent CEO, that has skeleton staff and that has no real home. This is a motion full of self-congratulation about what this government has done on drought for the last five years. But let me tell you what it has really done— Mr Gee interjecting— Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Don't worry about Jess Jennings! Jess Jennings is a very good candidate for Labor in Calare, who happens to be an academic with expertise in farm extension. Mr Gee interjecting— Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 You could learn something from him. The reason you put this motion up tonight is that you're scared of Jess Jennings. You know Jess Jennings is coming to get you in Calare. That's what this is really about. Mr Gee interjecting— Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 The climate is changing in the most challenging way for our farmers. Dry spells are becoming more protracted; the temperature is getting hotter. Government can do three things, and those opposite have hardly done any of it in the last five years. First, we can act to mitigate climate change, something the government are unprepared to commit to. Second, we can give drought assistance, assisting farmers who are struggling most with drought in times of protracted dry spells however and wherever we can. Third, we can work with farmers to help them build that resilience and better prepare themselves for drought. But unless we are doing all of those things, we are failing our farming community, we are failing farming families and we are failing, very importantly, the Australian economy. Governments, plural, and political parties, plural—including the two major parties in this country—agreed more than five years ago that all the old exceptional circumstances initiatives were not working; they were a failure. It was universally agreed that we would tear it all up and all the moral hazards involved and start again. In 2013, something of a miracle was achieved: the states and the Commonwealth, with bipartisan political support across the spectrum, agreed to a new intergovernmental agreement, recognising the failure of past drought policies and the need to redirect our attention and resources mainly to resilience, business models et cetera—things that would help farmers treat drought as a regular event which can be managed within the business cycle. But what did those opposite do on their election? The then Minister for Agriculture, the member for New England, abolished the COAG committee which was charged with progressing these reforms and turning them from principles into something meaningful. Now, more than five years on, they want us to believe that they now realise that resilience is part of the equation, and that they are going to do something about it! As always, they have enhanced or embellished the look of their spending, by putting it into a future fund, which they can say is a $5 billion fund. But, importantly, they are only spending $100 million a year, not ad infinitum but only for the first four years—sensibly, because whatever they do should be reviewed after four years. So those opposite are slow coming to the party, but for many farmers it is too late, quite frankly. Those opposite need to apologise to those who have not been given the assistance they need to better adapt to a changing and more challenging climate; instead of congratulating themselves they should be hanging their heads in shame. Mr Gee 261393 Deputy Speaker, given that I have been informed that there was a timing error— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 Is the member seeking leave? Mr Gee 261393 Yes, I am. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 I can confirm that the Clerk has advised that there was a problem with the clock during the member for Calare's earlier contribution and he only got half of his allotted time. On that basis I ask if leave is granted. Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 Mr Deputy Speaker, I'm not allowed to debate the issue of whether leave is granted, but the mistake is unfortunate, and I regret the fact that the member for Calare was denied the time. But my problem now—and leave is the purview of the opposition—is that the member for Calare is now going to use it as a right of reply to the comments I have made, and on that basis leave is refused. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 Leave is not granted. I call the member for Grey. 17:26 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I must say that I'm disappointed in that attitude from the shadow minister for agriculture. This is an important issue and it was clear that the member had a 10-minute speaking session. Drought is trying, but it is part of the Australian landscape. I'm a strong supporter of the positive measures this government, the coalition government, has provided over a period of time for farmers to prepare for drought—none better of course than the FMDs, which were established by the Howard government. Following lobbying by me and a number of other members from rural areas, the investment limits were doubled in the last two years. Another measure is the immediate tax write-off for fodder storage. Nothing could be more important in preparing for drought than having more grain sheds and more hay sheds to hold more fodder. There is also the immediate write-off for water infrastructure and fencing. These schemes are supporting farmers to prepare for drought—to make their properties drought-proof, if you like. But sometimes, beyond any ability of rural businesses and individual businesses to cope, the droughts go on. In that regard, this government has been very responsive, with the Farm Household Support Allowance extra $12,000 cash payment and the farm business improvement and drought concessional loans. Other speakers spoke briefly about the Regional Investment Corporation. I must say, from a South Australian point of view, that we had always been disappointed with our South Australian department, PIRSA, in managing these drought loans, and we are very pleased to see these loans brought into the national level. In addition, the Rural Financial Counselling Service, which of course is available to farmers, has had its budget substantially increased to deal with the load. There is also support for farmers seeking to engage in multi-peril crop insurance. In South Australia, more lately, I petitioned Minister McKenzie, Minister McCormack and the Prime Minister to extend to the Drought Communities Program from the eastern states to South Australia. Sixty councils in New South Wales and Queensland have received or are eligible to receive up to $1 million each. I thank Minister McKenzie for making $17 million available to 17 regional councils in South Australia—13 in my electorate of Grey. It is a real shot in the arm for local businesses, and I am looking forward to those projects rolling out. I have a couple of councils that I think were a little unfortunate to miss the criteria, and I continue to speak to the minister about those councils. I thank Rural Aid and their Buy a Bale for coming to South Australia. In early August, I contacted Wayne Thomson from Rural Aid about bringing that program to South Australia to allow South Australian donors to support South Australian farmers and allow South Australians farmers to register their requirements on their website. That is exactly what they have done, and there have been deliveries of hay into South Australia. I was very pleased to be with Wayne Thomson in a drought affected paddock east of Eudunda a few weeks ago when they dropped off a load. The farmers are visibly moved, not just by the hay supplies but by the fact that they know that people care and want to help them out. That is very rewarding. I congratulate Steve Willas from EP Grain and Mentally Fit EP for their effort in collecting and distributing hay on the Eyre Peninsula. I was out inspecting properties at Worlds End and Geranium Plains with Steph and Simon Schmidt. Steph mentioned to me that the NAB had raised the prospect of giving interest rate reductions to drought affected farmers in areas that were drought declared. I was a bit concerned about this, as she was, as South Australia does not have drought declarations. I met with NAB subsequently in the parliament here. They changed the wording of the availability of that help for farmers and are using a PIRSA map for South Australia now. That has put South Australia on exactly the same footing as the other states when it comes to NAB. I subsequently contacted Anna Bligh from the Australian Banking Association and said, 'Do you think you could press the rest of your major banks to deliver a similar service?' She said, 'Yes, I will try,' and within two weeks we had a letter from the ABA committing just that, which I have been furnishing to farmers and other people within the electorate to make sure that when they go in and negotiate with their banks they know that their banks are committed to helping them through this tough time. I thank them for that support. 17:31 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo It's not just Labor that's saying this, but farmers, reporters, communities, councils: you cannot just talk about drought; you need to also talk about climate change. If you don't talk about the two together you are, quite frankly, not doing your job. Farmers For Climate Action have been loud and vocal on this issue for quite some time, calling on the people in this place, and in particular their elected representatives, the government, to make sure that we have real action on climate change and that we are getting ready to tackle drought. That is why it is disappointing that the government have not acknowledged their mistakes in the past. As the member for Hunter said, it was this government, when they first came to office in 2013, that axed the COAG process that established an agreement between the states to develop drought resilience policies, working together at a state and federal level. Just imagine where we'd be today if we had continued that work, if this government hadn't been blinded by their ideology and abolished that process? Imagine where we'd be today, helping those farmers and their communities to adapt to climate change, to make sure that we're ready and that we're tackling it? Agricultural issues and climate change across states—that's the cooperation that's needed. I do get disappointed that you hear from the Nationals all the time, 'What about the farmers?' They are important, but what they never raise in this debate is the impact on people who work on the farm, the impact on the supply chain jobs. Just take what is happening to our rice industry in the Riverina. I've been there and spoken to those farmers. I been up on the header and spoken to them. I also visited SunRice and spoke to a number of the workers there. Unfortunately, because of the impact of drought in the Riverina and the cost of water on the temporary market—it's gone up to $400—they are now scaling back their operations. A hundred jobs in the supply chain of SunRice will go. That is a big impact on that community in food manufacturing. When we have a drought, because we haven't acted sooner, it does have an impact throughout the supply chain. It's not just the food manufacturing jobs that are impacted by drought; a lot of the businesses that support farmers also go through tough times. If we are going to be a country that grows things, we need to be a country that has long-term drought preparedness policies. We need to look at carbon farming. We need to look at ways that farmers can diversify. We need to share experiences about how to best use the resources that we have. Everybody agrees that you need water to grow things. The way in which we manage water going forward needs to be calm and methodical. You can't just throw cash at it. There needs to be science involved in this. We need to work towards it. One of the previous speakers spoke about the RIC, as it's called, the Regional Investment Corporation. I want to acknowledge the role that the Bendigo Bank is playing, as a lot of this work has been outsourced and subcontracted to it. Through its community banks and through its own rural finance corporation, Bendigo Bank works closely with farmers, ensuring that they have the capital to do these investments and—most importantly, because cash flow is low—working on hardship with them. The previous speaker also mentioned the importance of rural financial counsellors, and I completely agree. That's why it was so disappointing that one of the things this government did was sack all of the rural financial counsellors in my electorate. They closed that office down. They sacked those rural financial counsellors because we were past the drought, not realising that the next one was just around the corner. When we talk about decentralisation and the need for jobs, let's not forget that they also sacked the 60 workers at the Australian Emergency Management Institute in the Macedon Ranges. So, for all the talk about the jobs they're creating, they're not talking about the jobs that they've axed, the people they've sacked in regional areas. Farmers and communities are also complaining about the complex process and the delays in getting through to Centrelink, trying to get their farm household assistance—there's no mention of that failure in this motion. If we are serious about supporting farmers, the workers in the agricultural industry and the supply chain then we need to restore and rebuild the agreement that was reached with the states back before this government came to office. 17:36 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Gee, it's a great pleasure to stand and speak to this motion by you, the member for Calare, because this motion emphasises the commitment of the government to supporting our farming communities through this current drought. It emphasises, though, that the government is looking well beyond that to long-term resilience, certainly to provide immediate support but to look at ongoing support for Australian farmers, their families and their communities into the future. This is most certainly about better preparation and the ability to manage through droughts and of course to recover from them in the interests of farmers, their communities and their families into the long term. Many in this chamber have been involved in debate about drought management over many, many years. Of course, we know that drought is a feature of the climate here in this great Australian continent and that drought is something that our regional communities have had to face up to time and time again over many generations. We continue to fine-tune and better direct support and policy into the future for the support of those communities so that they can prepare for and respond to the impact of drought. This government particularly wants to encourage self-reliance, more so than ever before, in farming communities, grazing communities, the organisations that support them—both from a government and non-government perspective—and, as I've said a number of times, those communities that make up regional Australia. So to look at an approach that is properly focused on the services of support, the research necessary in the long term and the adoption of technology—whether that be in water management, as some speakers have spoken about, or in crop management and livestock management—is as essential as the infrastructure that will support long-term sustainability for our regional communities. A number of speakers, particularly the previous speakers on this side of the chamber, have spoken about the elements within the current government drought support program, farm household allowance; the support for investment allowances in terms of water infrastructure, feed and fodder provision; mental health support in various parts of the community; and the Drought Communities Program, which, as the member for Grey said earlier, is providing much-needed assistance through local governments in regional communities. This is a drought not only on the farm; it's also a drought on the main street of town. Again, the focus has been on preparedness as well as the immediate response challenge. We need to help those who need it but recognise, at the same time, as many of us have seen, that there are those who are unable to ask or don't feel they're in a position to ask. The minister for agriculture certainly encourages us always to make sure people are not self-assessing in terms of the support that's available but are putting their hand up and getting the assistance. Previous speakers on this side of the House have emphasised that the funding program at present is up to $7 billion. That is a record amount. That is in stark contrast to what the Productivity Commission said all of those years ago in reviewing drought policy—to get away from just a reactionary approach to a preparedness approach. I've heard some comment about that. I've heard the comment about COAG. I profess to know a little bit about it because I was one of the state ministers who sat around the table at that time. I can confirm from the perspective as a regional member of this parliament that the current drought package and, more particularly now, the support going forward is breaking the mould. This is finally delivering what we need for regional communities around the country. It's not just about government response, obviously, and it's not just about industry response; the community response continues throughout the communities that we represent. I can mention so many people, but I mention most particularly my good mate Bill Manton, who runs drought fodder drives and support into western Queensland. He is doing a sterling job, as are so many people around the country who are truly interested in the fortunes of regional Australia. 17:41 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson You'd be forgiven for thinking that the newest slogan for the Morrison government is 'Better late than never', and the Future Drought Fund is no exception to this, sadly. For years, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments buried their heads in the very dry earth of Australia, hoping that the drought would simply go away, but rain has not fallen in sufficient quantity, produce is not growing as we would have it, dams are certainly not overflowing and our farmers are still struggling. I only have to have a quick flick through my Facebook feed to see a number of people whom I am friends with still out feeding stock and taking photos of withering dams. It is still a tragedy. Finally, the coalition government has decided to do something about this crisis. Once again, it is better late than never. The Future Drought Fund was announced on the morning of the Drought Summit held in October this year. It was announced without consideration for the discussions that were about to take place at that summit. It was announced, curiously, without listening to any of the experts on the day—any of the drought affected farmers who had travelled from all over Australia to give their opinions at that summit. The Future Drought Fund was announced and then the Morrison government used the Drought Summit as a photo op, really, rather than a well overdue discussion with the people who are actually living through this disaster. This is a government that have acted on impulse after they finally realised the drought wouldn't just go away—the rain wouldn't just miraculously come. As much as we can wish and hope, that has not been the case. The bill to establish the Future Drought Fund was only introduced in parliament last week and the $5 billion concept the government speakers are patting themselves on the back about might not even be a reality until 2029. That's over 10 years away. Instead of high-fiving each other, I encourage the government to take a leaf out of Labor's book. The first Intergovernmental Agreement on National Drought Program Reform was established by a Labor government. It expired on 1 July this year and we are yet to see a new agreement. In question time today, the minister for agriculture said this is 'a drought that is spreading like a cancer'. I say to the minister and the government: our farming communities need more than platitudes and slogans to get them through this crisis and crises to come. They need a forward-thinking government that is willing to govern. This is not the first drought Australian farmers have experienced and, sadly, we know it won't be the last. The Morrison government, just like the Abbott and Turnbull governments before it, refuses to acknowledge that climate change will impact on our agricultural sectors. They continue to ignore our young farmers, who readily embrace the science and the concept and who know we need to make significant and deep changes to agriculture in this country. They continue to ignore Australia's changing climate and they keep slapping bandaids on the suffering of drought affected farmers and the communities that support them. These communities know it needs to be deeper and broader than what is being projected by this current government. Australia needs a long-term solution, a comprehensive drought policy that supports farmers into the future. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate TheMaitland Mercury journalist Belinda-Jane Davis on her incredible coverage of the drought in a campaign titled 'The big dry' for Fairfax papers. Her comprehensive reporting earned her a prestigious Walkley Award in the last couple of weeks for excellence in journalism, an accolade that is well deserved. In the words of Belinda-Jane, I say to farmers across Australia who are affected by this disaster: together we will get through this difficult time. BJ, thank you for your work. You raised the issue so energetically in our community and you never turned your back on our farmers. But it's going to take more than awareness campaigns. It's going to take action, it's going to take evidence and it's going to take experience that we do need to take into account. But, more than ever, it's going to take the effort of a government that will produce some action rather than just slogans. Mr Broadbent MT4 Deputy Speaker, there was a mistake made earlier in this particular debate. The proposer was given 10 minutes to speak. Like all members of parliament, we watch the clock to see how long we've got to go. He adhered to what the clock was saying and finished his speech after five minutes. He actually had 10, and I hope that the chamber will think it reasonable enough for the member to once again seek leave to finish his comments. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 I thank the member for McMillan. The member for Calare. 17:47 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I seek leave to conclude my remarks. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 Is leave granted? Ms Claydon 248181 Leave is granted, although I will be seeking some clarification around the 10-minute ruling, because it has not been the case that every single proposer of a motion has been given 10 minutes in this chamber. The Selection Committee makes various decisions, and it is not an automatic right to get 10 minutes. But I acknowledge that the speaker had assumed he had 10 minutes and, for whatever reason, the clocks have not worked as they should have. So leave is granted, but it should not be assumed that this is an automatic right to all movers. Mr Broadbent MT4 Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Newcastle has made a reasonable request, and I ask that you seek information while Mr Gee is speaking and to clarify the 10 minutes, please. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 I thank the Chamber. I just ask the Chamber to bear with me. I've already sought advice from the clerk. I'll just do that again, if you'll bear with me. The clerk advises it is appropriate and in line with Selection Committee decisions previously. Ms Claydon 248181 I would like to make a contribution. As a member of the Selection Committee, I can attest that 10 minutes was given to Mr Gee for his contribution. Mr GEE 261393 Again, I seek leave to conclude my remarks, Deputy Speaker. Leave granted. Mr GEE 261393 I thank the members opposite. I wanted to mention the importance of the Drought Communities Program, which provides grants to eligible local governments to support local community infrastructure and other drought relief projects for communities impacted by drought. As we know, each council will receive up to $1 million for eligible projects, with the government recently extending the number of councils eligible from 60 to 81. The important thing about the Drought Communities Program is it recognises that the impact of drought isn't just at the farm gate; it's in country communities throughout Australia, and many of them are smaller country communities too. In the electorate of Calare, for example, the Blayney, Oberon, Mid-Western and Dubbo regional councils and Cabonne Council are all eligible for the funding, and a number of projects have already been identified. One great project which Dubbo Regional Council has identified, through Mayor Ben Shields, is $560,000 for a water supply for Stuart Town. The allocation of a water source for Stuart Town would allow a bore and storage tank to be installed to provide water for the 250 residents of the village. In the Blayney shire, projects identified include $80,000 for a refurbishment of water bores for stock in the Blayney community; $400,000 to enhance the Blayney Showground; and $46,000 for an upgrade of the kitchen at the Mandurama hall. I believe that improvements are planned for Carcoar as well. The list is considerable. All of these projects will make a real difference to the lives of people in those communities who've been hit hard—because, when drought hits, it might not be just the farmer who's affected; it might be the tyre fitter or the folks who run the grocery store. The knock-on effect is absolutely huge. I mentioned the Regional Investment Corporation. The member for Hunter made some rather unkind comments about the corporation. On Saturday night I was in Wellington, which is part of the great food basket of New South Wales and Australia, and I was speaking to Norm Smith. Norman and Pip run a merino farm just outside Wellington, on Twelve Mile Road. Farmers are already talking about the RIC. Norman was relaying the story of one farmer with very, very positive things to say about the investment funds available through the Regional Investment Corporation. Norm also mentioned a couple who were in the process of acquiring farming country in the Peak Hill area; they were going to use funds provided by the RIC to basically transform that farm, including droughtproofing it. Again, the story was a very positive one about their experience with the Regional Investment Corporation. They're just two stories about a corporation which is just starting out, and, if this is the experience of the first few customers of the Regional Investment Corporation, I think it bodes very well for the future. I really think the member for Hunter should take a less antagonistic and more positive approach and work with us on projects like the Regional Investment Corporation, because they will actually make a real difference to the lives of people in country Australia. It's not political. If the member for Hunter looks at the last election results in and around Orange, we were lucky enough to be successful in every single booth in Orange. If you look at Cabonne, which is the farming area— An opposition member interjecting— Mr GEE 261393 no, federal and state—again, we won every booth when I was the state member, and I was lucky enough to do that as the federal member as well. If you look at the Gulgong and Mudgee areas, the story was the same at the last federal election and when I was lucky enough to run as the state candidate. When I was the state candidate for Forbes and Parkes, we won every booth in those areas, including booths that had never traditionally been coalition-voting booths. The RIC is not political, and it is making a real difference to the lives of people in country Australia already. If the member for Hunter wants to kick around here in R&M Williams boots, he has to walk the walk, not just talk the talk and sell out country Australia— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 The time allotted for this debate has expired. Aged Care 167 17:54 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I'm pleased to speak on the motion moved by the member for Bass. I note that this was last debated on 20 August. It is now 3 December, and we are still seeking action from this government on the aged-care crisis in this country. We've had the government agree to a royal commission into aged care, but it seems that nothing has been done since they conceded it needed to occur. In this place we're still waiting for news of the details of that royal commission. We had been waiting, until quite recently, for the release of the data around the number of Australians now waiting for aged-care packages. In the order of 126,000 Australians are waiting for home care packages. This crisis is deepening as this government twiddles its thumbs. It is reprehensible that there are currently over 69,000 older Australians living without any home care package at all and tens of thousands of others who are not receiving the home care package they have been assessed as eligible for. One can only think that this is a crisis, and it's a crisis that is going to lead to another crisis. If people are not in receipt of a home care package or are in receipt of a home care package that gives them less care than they actually require to live independently, we're going to find more and more older Australians entering aged care rather than staying in their own home. We know that that's wrong from a health perspective, wrong from a social perspective and absolutely wrong from an economic perspective. This government has a shameful track record of failure in this space. On home care packages, the 2018 budget is a complete and utter hoax. Prior to the budget being handed down, the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care, the member for Hasluck, was on the record blaming the current home care package crisis on budget pressures: 'Sorry; we can't afford to look after the older Australians who need home care packages.' He said: I do feel for families who struggle with the fact they do not get the level three or four package. But the reality is we have a budgetary process, and that fiscal constraint has to be considered. In question time today, the member for Hasluck went to the dispatch box, on the back of a Dorothy Dixer, to talk not about home care packages, not about the crisis in aged care in this country, not about mistreatment of individuals in the aged-care system and not about how this government might work to improve aged care in both of these areas. No, he went to the dispatch box, from a Dorothy Dixer, to talk about superannuants. The member for Hasluck needs to get back to thinking about the people he is absolutely, critically responsible for. He needs to pay attention to the details around the royal commission and he needs to address the crisis that is happening now. The budget did nothing to fix this aged-care crisis. It shifted money from aged care to home care packages. It was tricky accounting with a promise of 14,000 new home care packages. We're supposed to celebrate 3,500 places per year and think they're adequate, when we've got 126,000 Australians waiting for appropriate support to stay in their homes. I can't stress that enough. My mum is 91 years of age and living independently in her home. The dignity that confers on her is priceless, and there's no budgetary constraint that would see her family wanting her to go into an aged-care facility before it was necessary. Being able to live at home independently with some support through her package has been an absolute boon not just for her but for our family. It means that she remains alert and engaged. It means she's in her own home feeling absolutely independent and in control of her life. And, as one of her eight kids, let me tell you: you don't want to see her if she's not in control! The member for Hasluck needs to get to work and do his day job. 17:59 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson It is no secret that Australia has an ageing population. A 2017 report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported that over one in seven people were aged 65 and over. In my electorate of Paterson that number is bigger. Over 28,000 of my constituents are aged over 65 years—that's one in five people. I love representing people who are, as they tell me, 'more experienced'. My OBEs—those 'over bloody 80'—are very proud of the experiences they've had in their lives, and I say, 'Good on them!' They want to live proud and independent lives. As lawmakers in this parliament, we have an obligation to support our ageing population. The Morrison government has, sadly, failed this obligation. The statistics prove it. The latest data on the government's home care packages waiting list revealed that more than 126,000 older Australians are languishing as they wait for care. It also stated that over 69,000 Australians are without any home care package at all. There are almost 300 older Australians who have waited more than two years for their approved home care package without any care whatsoever. The 2017 budget committed 14,000 new home care packages over four years, yet, as Labor predicted, this number is distressingly inadequate. The latest figures show that the waiting list for home care packages grew by more than 20,000 between July and December last year, and this number is expected to climb dramatically. We are in an aged-care crisis, and it is the product of this Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. As the waiting list for home care packages grows longer and longer, fresh stories emerge daily about older Australians, many of them in pretty dire circumstances, waiting for care. Older Australians are entering residential care, or even emergency departments, rather than being able to stay at home and receive the home care they have been approved for. Members of my community are feeling this pain. I was recently contacted by John, whose 81-year-old mother, Mary, lives in Maitland in my electorate of Paterson. Due to Mary's age and the number of illnesses she suffers from, she requires help at home to perform basic tasks such as cooking, cleaning and bathing. Mary is entitled to an aged-care package, yet today is the 530th day she has been waiting for one—530 days! During their recent talk with My Aged Care, John was informed his mother's wait was far from over. Mary is expected to wait at least another six months to receive her home care package. This means Mary will have been waiting for a home care package for at least two years. The reality of this wait really is heartbreaking. In the past 18 months, Mary has been in and out of hospital with conditions that John, her son, says could have been avoided if she'd had appropriate care—simple things such as preventable infections. Mary's condition is even having a heartbreaking effect on the health of her husband, Peter. Peter is in his late 80s and he is Mary's primary carer. How often do we see circumstances like these? John has described the home care package process as long and frustrating, and I guarantee he is not the only person experiencing this frustration. It is fair to say that there are lives on the line because of this. The dignity and comfort of older members of our Australian community are at stake here. I'm calling on the government—in fact, I'm begging the government, pleading with them—to invest in fixing the home care package waiting list and properly address the growing crisis. This is a case of better late than never. We owe it to these Australians. I think of the stories of older Australians that have been shared with my staff and me, often stories of couples, like Peter and Mary, trying to care for one another. The wait is totally unacceptable in Australia in 2018. Older people in Australia have been told they should age gracefully at home. Well, we should provide the support and home care packages to see that they can. It is evidence based medicine. We should be able to provide the correct care and appropriate packages to see that in place. Mr Broadbent MT4 A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: colloquial language is acceptable in the parliament except when you use descriptive language like 'OBE'. That's what we can't do. In future, members need to accord the Chamber the understanding that you can't using such language in here. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 I note the comments from the member for McMillan. Thank you. The question is that the motion be agreed to. 18:05 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith If you want an example of how the chaos and instability of this government is affecting the lives of average Australians then look no further than the crisis that this government has developed in our aged care home care packages sector. The latest report from this government indicates that 126,000 Australians are waiting for a home care package. Sixty-nine thousand of those are without any home care package at all. So there are many who are waiting for an upgrade, but 69,000 are waiting with no home care package at all. And 300 have been waiting for a package for more than two years. Every MP in this place will have been lobbied by constituents about the need for home care packages for relatives or for friends, and the stories are quite harrowing—elderly Australians unable to care for themselves, in impossible situations; children and grandchildren having to take on caring responsibilities for elderly relatives because they can't get the necessary support from this government; children having to quit their jobs just to look after their parents, because this government won't provide enough support for home care packages. The system of aged care is supposed to promote remaining in the family home for as long as possible, with the support of government through home care packages, to avoid people going into more costly residential care. This is a system that we have developed in the Commonwealth parliament over many years in recent times, to take that pressure off what is an already burdened residential aged-care sector. What this government is doing, by denying people those home care packages, is the complete opposite of the way the system should be working. The system was designed to take pressure off residential aged care, where there are limited beds throughout the country. Ultimately, elderly Australians aren't getting the necessary support that they need and deserve within their homes to live a rewarding and fulfilling life. And the cost to the Commonwealth budget will blow out, as a result of people not getting the support that they deserve and need in their home, because we all know that, if someone doesn't get that support, if they don't get the necessary access to services to help them live within their home, they tend to go downhill quicker and end up being in residential care earlier than they otherwise would have. And we all know that that is costly, not only to the individual involved but to the government as well, in providing that residential aged-care support. This government has an appalling record when it comes to supporting the elderly in our community, not only through the pension system but also in terms of aged care and residential packages. They've cut $1.2 billion from aged-care services in this country from the 2015 budget onwards. In their recent budget, they finally listened to the community and announced that they would provide an additional 14,000 new home care packages. But guess what? There was no additional funding. Not only are those 14,000 a drop in the ocean which won't deal with the 126,000 that are on the waiting list—14,000 is woefully inadequate—but also this is funding that was redirected from elsewhere within the department. It wasn't new funding. It was funding that had simply been taken from another area and redirected into home care packages. So it's not going to deal with the issue that is the crisis in aged care and home care packages in this country. The government's response is to launch a royal commission, and we all know that they're going to use this as an excuse to delay action and to delay whittling down that waiting list for home care packages in this country. Well, the view of the Labor Party is that they can't use this as an excuse. They need to provide the support for elderly Australians in their homes—which elderly Australians deserve—immediately. This deserves the attention of the government immediately. This is why Labor is proposing to look at restricting negative gearing; to cut back on capital gains tax deductions; to, finally, properly tax family trusts; and to ensure that the franking credit system in this country works more efficiently and effectively, to ensure that we have the funding to provide that extra support for people in their elderly years, both through home care packages and through residential care. It is only the Labor Party that is listening to the welfare of elderly people in this country, and it is only Labor that is responding to those concerns about home care packages. (Time expired) 18:10 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Given that there are no government members wanting to talk about aged-care packages, I am going to take this opportunity to take one of their speaking spots. I can think of no more critical issue before this nation right now. I am sure that members opposite are not unlike those of us in opposition who are taking calls every day on this issue in our electorate offices. It is so appalling that there are 126,000 Australians now on the waitlist for home care packages. That number is growing every time the figures are released. Every time the minister has to fess up that things aren't going so well, we see an exponential increase in the number of people waiting and living without services they need to maintain a healthy, independent life in their homes. It is outrageous. The government have had five years to do something on aged care. They have done nothing but cut—indeed, they have been savage cuts at times—and sometimes tinker around the edges over the last 18 months in the hope that people in Australia might think that they're doing something. I will tell you what the latest call to my electorate office was about. I have conducted aged-care forums in Macquarie, Dobell, Herbert, Eden-Monaro—all across this country. So, unlike government members, every day we are talking to people who are waiting for the home care packages that are yet to be released. The government have the most shameful record ever when it comes to home care. One hundred and twenty-six thousand older Australians are waiting on the government, relying on members opposite to do the right thing and release moneys to enable them to live independently at home. And what is happening? Well, we saw a little flush of money coming through. I understand there were 14,000 packages released in the last budget papers. Of course, we know that was not new money. That was the money the government stole from residential aged care in order to stump up some money for the home care packages. The Australian people aren't fooled by that kind of monetary trickery. They know better than that. But I'll tell you what is so shocking: there are people who now set themselves up as a little home business to assist people in dealing with the My Aged Care system. It is so complicated. It is so appallingly handled by the government. People cannot navigate the website. People spend hours and hours on the phone to the point where they give up. Now there are people going around Australia saying, 'I will hang on the phone waiting for an answer for you and I'm going to charge you money to do so.' If you are somebody with access to a bit of money now, you can hire these people in Australia who deal with the bureaucracy on your behalf. That is the most shocking indictment on this government. It is evidence of how badly they've managed the My Aged Care system. They have just trashed aged care to the point where people seeking help, even when there is extended family to assist—I have met women with three degrees who come to tell me how they have difficulty navigating My Aged Care in order to get their mother some services to help her to remain living at home. We've all been there or we all know of someone who's been there. It is time this government confronted the reality. This is an ageing population. It doesn't get any better. You have a massive shortfall of funds right now. You need to be releasing home care packages like there's no tomorrow. But, instead, none of you actually back in your minister. Who in this cabinet is actually backing Minister Ken Wyatt to make sure he's got the money and resources needed to do this job properly? (Time expired) 18:15 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein When it comes down to why people want to speak on this motion, we face choices. And unfortunately, I have taken the bait, I accept that. What we have are motions that are often put forward by—how would you put it?—the hysterical, the overstated, the wannabe attention seekers of the opposition. This is yet another one of them, condemning the government for constantly putting Australians first. That is what we have done in every part of what we have focused on as part of this government and this program of delivery. It's true that there are many Australians who need more support in their aging and retiring years. We all agree with that. It's not driven by ideological concerns; it's not driven by the agenda of the Labor Party and their faux compassion; it's driven by practical reality and human lived experience. What we have said at every point and what we want for those Australians is dignity in their latter years, a sense of security about how they can live their lives and be able to get the care and support that they so genuinely need. That's why we actually heavily support the home care package system. It's why we've expanded it continuously to be able to do so. The fundamental underpinning of why we've been able to do that, why we've been able to increase the amount of money and support for home care packages, why we've been able to put more into the marketplace to make sure that those vulnerable Australians get the support and assistance they need to stay in the community and home that they love, surrounded by friends and family who love them, is that we have put a focus on building the economy to deliver. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TIM WILSON IMW The economy is not an end. It is merely a beginning. But the members who crudely interject on the other side should understand that if you don't have the financial capacity to deliver home care packages then there are no home care packages at all. We are doing what we can to make sure that those Australians who need that support and assistance are getting it. One of the big challenges we face, of course, is making sure that we are meeting what people need. Mr Deputy Speaker Gee, you know as well as I do, because you're a sensitive person who is well aware of the conditions and the circumstances of the people in your community, in the same way that I am and the members for Berowra and Wide Bay are, that they understand directly the challenges their communities face, particularly with an ageing population. What we're seeing is a change in demand around aged care overall. I hate to break it to the members of the opposition, but home care packages do not sit in isolation. We have special aged-care services where people are going into aged care at a latter stage of life, often with a higher acuity, who need greater assistance and support. We're providing support and assistance for that, working with the community sector, the private sector as well as charitable organisations. But what we're seeing—and it's a wonderful thing—is more people who want the opportunity to stay in their own home in the latter stages of their life because of the security and opportunity it provides people to stay in an environment of comfort. We understand that we have got to deliver that and we have to be able to assist people with that. But what doesn't assist the discussion is the pandering rhetoric from the opposition, without actually paying any attention to the substantive issue about how this government is driving that delivery at a community level. I would have thought that the increase in home care packages that this government has delivered would be a cause for celebration. Instead, it has become a rather trifling and pointless exercise in the Federation Chamber this afternoon and this evening for the opposition to try and score points. Don't get me wrong; I think there was some validity in some of the discussion that was made by the opposition. There was a critique of the fact that bureaucracy is complicated. I agree: bureaucracy is complicated. That's why I'm a great believer in deregulation and streamlining bureaucracy. I actually want people to be able to get assistance and support for the services that they seek. Unfortunately, I don't think that we are going to be hearing a deregulation agenda from the opposition as part of this discussion. In fact, they are backed up by the entire trade union movement, whose only purpose is designed to thrive and survive off the complexity of an industrial relations system that favours them—the Labor Party. We have decisions that need to be made about the future of aged care in this country, and they will come directly from this government's focus on the economy to deliver the services that people rightly expect. Debate adjourned. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: 70th Anniversary 171 18:20 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I move: That this House: (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; (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; (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 Criminal Code Act 1995; (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 (5) recognises the need for eternal vigilance of all countries, including Australia, to acknowledge past genocides as essential to stopping future genocides. As the member for Goldstein, it is a privilege to be able to move the motion to commemorate 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. I have moved this motion for a number of reasons. I have done this because I have one of the largest Jewish communities in Australia, and the tragedy of the Holocaust and the legacy of that genocide remain prevalent for so many people in the community that I am proud to represent and the community to the north of mine, the federal electorate of Melbourne Ports—and I understand the member for Melbourne Ports is speaking after me. I have also done this because of my Armenian heritage and understanding of the first genocide of the modern era. It wasn't just a human genocide, in the murdering of people marched through the Syrian Desert; like with the Jewish people, there was a cultural genocide too—so not just to remove people's lives and the capacity for them to be able to continue their family line but also to erase their memory, their legacy, their culture, their traditions and their capacity to be able to hand their culture onto the next generation. It was Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish lawyer from Poland, who coined the term 'genocide', noting that he: … became interested in genocide because it happened so many times. It happened to the Armenians, and after the Armenians, there was a very rough deal at the Versailles Conference because the criminals who were guilty of the genocide were not punished. Seeking to rectify this injustice, he embarked upon the process of drafting a convention that would ensure that such a crime would never be repeated. As an Australian I am of course proud of our country's incredible role in providing relief and support to the survivors of the Armenian genocide—the first international aid effort, and particularly from the great state of Victoria and the then Lord Mayor—and our role in the adoption of the UN genocide convention, as one of the founding members of the United Nations. But, as the only member of this house of Armenian descent, I remain fundamentally disappointed that our national parliament doesn't fully acknowledge the horror and tragedy of the genocide against the Armenians. I would hope that we would acknowledge the genocide against all people where they occur. Healing is enlivened when you cauterise a wound, because you clean it and you recognise that the damage that has been done is a pathway to healing. Acknowledging and honouring those who lost their lives and making sure that those who committed the crime are held to account and no longer feel that they can get away with it without proper critique, criticism and condemnation from the international community are critical to stopping future genocides. In addition to his work on the Holocaust, Dr Lemkin also wrote about the Ottoman government's systemic extermination of 1.5 million Armenians as well as many unfortunate Greeks and Syrians. He was incredibly moved by the stories of Armenians being forced to march into the Syrian Desert, marching to their death. It is due to Lemkin's work that we understand why we cannot turn a blind eye to genocide. Since 1948, we have seen genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and, recently, in 2003, in Darfur. There have also been genocides against the Kurds, with mass exterminations. These should not go unacknowledged or unpunished. Our collective responsibility, as members of a community of nations and as a state beholden to the genocide convention that we honour today, is to prevent, to call out and to punish the perpetrators of genocide where it occurs in the world. But it becomes difficult to do so when we're unable to acknowledge the original sin that led to the defining of the term. It's silence that condemns those who lost their lives through an action by those who know to do better. It's silence that leaves people in pain. It's silence that ensures that that there is no proper redress for crimes committed in the past. The motion today is about calling out that silence in this parliament, across everybody, to make sure that these crimes never happen again. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 261393 I thank the member for Goldstein. Is there a seconder for the motion? 18:26 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I second the motion. I thank the member for Goldstein for his motion as we approach 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. I also acknowledge the grave injustices of the genocide against the Jewish community in the Second World War and, whilst there's an indictment against humanity, I trust we have learnt something as an international community so that we can make good on wrongs. I take this opportunity to raise awareness about a present-day genocide that is occurring, as documented by the United Nations, in Rakhine State in Myanmar against the minority Rohingya Muslims. The current situation in Myanmar is not just mere violence or abuse; there are atrocities. It is a humanitarian crisis of catastrophic proportions were, which is resulting in the displacement of over 700,000 people into neighbouring Bangladesh. Myanmar's security forces have perpetrated the gravest crimes on civilians. The situation has been described by the United Nations and Human Rights Watch as a 'textbook example of ethnic cleansing' and 'crimes against humanity'. Evidence from a number of investigations also carried out by Human Rights Watch have documented a series of brutal crackdowns by security forces against Rohingya Muslims, including extrajudicial killings; torture; the suffering of Rohingya men, women and children; the destruction, arson and taking over of more than 300 villages by the military; as well as endemic rape and sexual violence. It's important to note that there has been a long history of discrimination against Rohingya. The government of Myanmar continues to deny Rohingya citizenship, along with the provision of basic government services, such as health and education. However, the violence that is now occurring is of a different kind. It is now a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Bangladesh has opened its doors to Rohingya refugees. People from Bangladesh continue to show tremendous generosity and hospitality in the face of crisis. Despite the challenges that the nation faces domestically, Bangladesh has shown itself to be a compassionate and caring nation. Bangladesh is not a rich country by any means and is not well-equipped to handle the influx of refugees of this magnitude. While agencies such as UNICEF, Oxfam and Save the Children are working hard on the ground to secure humanitarian assistance and basic services for Rohingya, the large number of displaced refugees make the task much more difficult. As the late Kofi Annan, former General Secretary of the United Nations, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and, importantly, former chair of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, said: We recognise that the challenges facing Rakhine State and its peoples are complex and the search for lasting solutions will require determination, perseverance and trust. While I'm pleased that Australia is playing a crucial role to find lasting peace to this humanitarian crisis engulfing Rakhine State, clearly a lot more needs to be done. I call on the government to take a stronger stance on the authorities in Myanmar and to implement the recommendations of the advisory commission by reinforcing our commitment of support for the unimpeded humanitarian access to all parts of Rakhine State as well as the refugee camps in Bangladesh. For those of us who supported Aung San Suu Kyi in her quest for peace and democracy in Myanmar, it is incredibly disappointing to witness her silence and, worse, her feigned ignorance concerning the ethnic cleansing of the Rakhine population. We must work closely with our regional partners to ensure that the government of Myanmar recommits to the pursuit of peace and a process for national reconciliation. The situation before the Australian government and the United Nations is urgent. We cannot merely play the role of bystander in the hope of change. Clearly, as part of the concerned international community, and by having a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, we have an obligation to act and not simply despair when basic human rights are at stake, particularly when it involves people within our region and within our sphere of influence. 18:30 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Today I rise in strong support of the motion of my friend the member for Goldstein to acknowledge the 70th anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This was a significant moment for the world, where it was unanimously agreed that the horrors inflicted on people on the basis of their race, national or ethnical origin, or religious grouping would become a crime of international law. Seventy years ago the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was approved by General Assembly resolution 260A(III) on 9 December 1948. Australia's then foreign minister, Dr HV Evatt, was in the chair of the General Assembly when the conventions were passed, and Australia was one of the first countries to adopt the convention. The convention made genocide a crime under international law so that it should be both prevented and punished. The convention defines genocide in article II as: … any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Article III made the following acts punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. The year 1948 was within three years of the end of the Second World War, a war which saw the Holocaust, the Shoah, in which the murder of six million Jews at the hands of the Nazi regime and its collaborators took place. This figure represented nearly two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe. In April 1945, General Dwight D Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe, wrote about Ohrdruf, a subcamp of Buchenwald he'd just visited. Eisenhower must have been an amazing leader and a man of extraordinary foresight. He said: The things I saw beggar description … The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering … I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations to 'propaganda'. Eisenhower organised delegations of politicians, journalists and filmmakers to view firsthand what had happened in the death camps in order to bear witness to what was then—and it's hard to imagine now—a sceptical public. One journalist was asked by a colleague if the scenes in the camps were as bad as they were described in the newspapers. 'No,' he responded, 'they were worse.' Sadly, in the 70 years since the Holocaust, the denial of it has been growing around the world, especially in the Muslim world. Even in the West, younger generations are more ignorant of the Holocaust than they should be. As a member of this House, I've been outspoken on the importance of both the recognition and the prevention of genocide and of upholding human dignity as a fundamental human right. I've spoken out against the persecution of Christians in the Middle East, of Yazidis and Kurdish minorities, as well as drawing the House's attention to human rights abuses in North Korea, including the murder of mixed race children. On this, the 70th anniversary, we are reminded of the importance of recognition in an act of prevention and prosecution. Let me say in this House that I think the world has been too slow to recognise and call out the Armenian genocide a century ago for what it was. It's time every nation in the world, including our own, recognised the Armenian genocide for what it was. It's time the Erdogan regime in Turkey owned up to their own history as well. Unlike my friend the member for Goldstein, I'm not of Armenian heritage, nor do I have a large Armenian constituency in my electorate. But the cause of the Armenian people on this point is absolutely just. The death of 1½ million Armenians has been dismissively referred to as 'victims of war', 'civilian casualties' or 'collateral damage'. Those very euphemisms were the same used by Nazi perpetrators of the Holocaust. Who could forget Hitler's infamous line, 'Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?' That's why it's important to call these genocides out for what they are. My friend the member for Goldstein spoke about Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur and the former Yugoslavia. I, like him, think of the Kurds, both the Kurds who have been subjected to genocide during the Iran-Iraq war and in subsequent times as well, where we continue to see their murder. If 'never again' is to be anything more than a slogan, it must be a call to action. That call to action must be a call for recognition and to stop denial, a call for more education, a call for greater acknowledgement of the genocides that have occurred. If we don't do that, we're failing to learn from history and, in effect, desecrating the memory of those who did not live to see the future. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 174 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 18:36 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 261393 Before I call the next speaker, I acknowledge the presence of members of the Armenian National Committee, who've joined us in the Federation Chamber this evening. Welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 174 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: 70th Anniversary 174 18:36 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports I want to pay tribute, also, to the Armenian National Committee for their involvement with the member for Goldstein and organising this debate this afternoon. It's a very important anniversary, the 70th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and I'm proud to be involved in recalling its passage. It was Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish lawyer from Poland, who coined the term 'genocide' in response to the extent of the atrocities inflicted on the Armenian people—1½ million people, as the member for Berowra said. Apparently it wasn't understood or known before that. Of course, in that conflict with Turkey, many Greek and Assyrian people of the Ottoman Empire were equally badly affected. But the non-remembrance of it had a specific effect. As the member for Berowra said, Adolf Hitler told a leading group of Nazi generals, meeting in the days before the commencement of the Second World War, words to the effect, 'Who remembers the Armenians?' He said this phrase because it presaged what his aggressive plans in eastern Europe were. They were issued at Obersalzberg on the eve of the Second World War to say that Germany was going to launch a racial war in eastern Europe. It was not a war of nation against nation. He was assuring his generals and gauleiters that they could get away with it because of what had happened to the Armenians. It's so important to go back to the beginning and, as we recall what happened in the Second World War, to remember this genocide that happened in the First World War. If we don't remember these kinds of things, it leads to situations that we've seen to a lesser extent all around the world since—in Darfur, Myanmar, Syria, North Korea and now in East Kazakhstan and Xinjiang in China. For Labor members of parliament, it's great that our then President of the UN General Assembly, Herbert Vere Evatt, who was foreign minister of Australia through the passage of the genocide convention, urged all signatories to ratify the convention at as early a date as possible. Australia was one of the first. Evatt's words were, 'The vote marked the protection of the most fundamental right of all, the very right of human groups to exist as groups.' I, like the member for Berowra, have a deep personal attachment to this mission. I stand here today as a member of Australia's vibrant Australian Jewish community and the son of a refugee who fled Nazi Germany in 1939. Probably one of the proudest moments of my parliamentary career was to stand, as a junior minister, in Berlin amongst the Commonwealth war graves, and to recount, to the several hundred German and diplomatic dignitaries, the fate of my grandparents, who were murdered by the German state in Auschwitz. In 2015, I represented the opposition leader at the 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre. Michael Koziol, and all of the horrible journalists who follow that particular low road, can be reassured that I paid my own fare there. I thought it was important that there be an Australian who was present with Bill Clinton and others to see what Ratko Mladic and the others convicted of genocide in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia had done there in Srebrenica. I've also spoken many times on the genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and on the massacres in Rwanda and in Darfur, where international law has had some success in prosecuting those charged with genocide. There have been major inadequacies in the consistency of the genocide convention worldwide. The Armenian genocide remains unrecognised. Again, it was one of the great moments to see a son of Armenian heritage, Mr Joe Hockey, the former member for North Sydney, raise this, and I think it's great work by the member for Goldstein and by the Armenian National Committee to raise this issue. Well done. This is an issue that the parliament will continue to address, until we officially pass recognition of what happened to the Armenians. 18:41 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar It is my great pleasure to rise today to speak in support of this motion moved by my colleague and good friend, the member for Goldstein. Seventy years ago, the United Nations unanimously voted to adopt the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Earlier in this parliament, I had cause to return to some historical documents of my parents and grandparents regarding why they left Poland and their time in Eastern Europe. There was scant documentation. But there was one document from the German government offering reparations for the death of my great-grandparents and my father's aunts and uncles at the hands of the Nazi regime. I can remember saying to the Premier of New South Wales, and to many others: 'How could this happen in a civilised nation?' She pointed me to a phrase, which has been mentioned by a number of other speakers, that Hitler spoke at the time, which was: 'Who, after all, remembers the Armenians?' That is why the crime of genocide is so critical. Seventy years on, we are no closer to eradicating this scourge on humanity. It was Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish lawyer from Poland, who coined the term 'genocide'. Raphael said: 'I became interested in genocide because it happened so many times. It happened to the Armenians, and after the Armenians there was a very rough deal at the Versailles conference because the criminals who were guilty of genocide were not punished.' Since 1948, we have seen genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and, as recently as 2003, in Darfur. Of these, convictions of genocide have been made. But the international community lacks the capacity to enforce those decisions. In some cases, the offenders have brazenly shrugged off these convictions. In my electorate of Mackellar, I'm proud to host one of the largest Armenian communities in the country, which includes Galstaun College, an Armenian school, which I have had the pleasure and privilege of visiting many times. Many of its students, who I recently spoke to, are descendants of survivors of the Armenian genocide. Many are from Syria, which has also gone through a civil war. When the UN was founded in 1945, it set out, as its mission, the institutionalisation of fundamental and inviolable human rights. This plight should be close to the heart of every Australian as we recognise our foundational role in the establishment of the United Nations, the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and our facilitation of the convention that I stand in support of now. Australia has always been a strong advocate in the defence of those fundamental rights and freedoms. This is no better encapsulated than in the spirit of the Anzacs at Gallipoli. What our soldiers witnessed only confirmed this. They saw the unspeakable horrors perpetrated against the indigenous Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christian minorities of Anatolia. In October, I stood in the House to recognise Anzac prisoners of war who suffered alongside Armenians held captive in desecrated churches—those Anzacs that rescued Armenian men, women and children, against all odds. This act of kindness out of the sheer belief in not letting evil prevail must not go unnoticed. The experience of the Armenians was one of the first, but, unfortunately, it wasn't the last. As others have mentioned, we still see the world remain silent while genocides are perpetrated. Armenians to this day struggle against the efforts of a genocidal regime to eradicate their presence in their historic homeland. The Armenian Republic of Artsakh has been from the late 1980s, and is still today, in a state of conflict. In Baku, many are subjected to racism, discrimination and marginalisation because of their heritage. This must stop. If history has taught us anything, it is that we must be prepared to speak out against these atrocities to prevent escalation and to prevent future genocides. That is why I stand to recognise the 70th anniversary of this convention. The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide was not conditional. If we are committed to ensuring these acts are never repeated, we must begin by acknowledging them. 18:46 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I speak in support of the motion on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Last month, Australia and many countries around the world commemorated the signing of the armistice that brought to an end the killing, maiming and horrific cruelty of World War I—but not for all people. For the Armenian people, the horrors and suffering continued. It was estimated that, by 1923, up to 1.5 million Armenians had perished, leading to what has often been described as the first act of genocide of the 20th century. The plight of the Armenian people touched the hearts of people across the world, including here in Australia. As a representative from South Australia I'm proud to recall our state's involvement in relief efforts for the Armenian people. South Australia was one of the most significant contributors to the Armenian Relief Fund of Australia for survivors, led by Adelaide pastor Reverend James Cresswell, who was unanimously appointed national secretary of the fund. Reverend Cresswell agreed to undertake a tour of the devastated regions, and reported on the work of the Australasian orphanage established in Lebanon to aid child survivors of the death marches. Several years ago I attended a display at the Pilgrim Uniting Church in Adelaide highlighting Reverend Cresswell's work in what was by then described as the Armenian genocide. I also note South Australia's commitment to the acknowledgement and prevention of genocide, drawing particular attention to a motion passed by the South Australian state parliament in 2009, recognising the events in Armenia between 1915 and 1923. In the past I've stood in this place to present a petition calling for the house to assist the Christian and Yazidi minorities in the Middle East facing persecution at the hands of ISIS, and to recognise and respond to that. I also attended commemoration services in Adelaide for victims of the Srebrenica massacre. We've only recently begun to see progress on these fronts, through international tribunals that have sought to bring to account the perpetrators of these great crimes against humanity. But in many cases justice has been elusive, and for the victims it has been too little too late. As we debate this motion today, we are reminded of the importance of identifying the warning signs to ensure that we are able to act to prevent these crimes from being committed. Today's motion also refers to the author of the convention against genocide and the man who invented the word 'genocide' 70 years ago, Dr Raphael Lemkin. My understanding is that he did this in order to describe the scale of the atrocities committed against the Armenians during the First World War and against the Jewish populations of Europe during the Second World War. The evidence of Armenian massacre, starvation, poisoning, death marches and even mass burnings is irrefutable. I make three closing observations. Those who deny the atrocities committed against the Armenians between 1915 and 1923 continue to perpetrate an injustice by contributing to a cover-up. Those who are indifferent to those events are accepting of them or condoning of them and therefore give licence to others to do the same. Indeed, we saw that on many other occasions in the 20th century. Conversely, recognition of atrocities will bring a sense of closure and solace to survivors and family descendants. It will also send a message to the world that such acts of horrific cruelty to others are not acceptable and, if perpetrated, those responsible will ultimately be held to account. To date, some 29 countries have recognised events in Armenia as genocide. On the 70th anniversary of the UN genocide convention, and as a founder and signatory of the convention, Australia should ensure that the convention is honoured whenever and wherever genocide occurs. 18:51 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin Firstly, I thank the member for Goldstein for moving this motion. I thank all of the speakers and also the Armenian National Committee for their work. This should not be an exceptional series of statements here today. As my colleague has just said, it is irrefutable that genocide occurred and was perpetrated on the Armenian people. It shouldn't be exceptional that we talk about that and it shouldn't be exceptional that we recognise that as a country. Indeed, on the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, it's absolutely certain that Australia will soon recognise this genocide. I'm very proud that we're one of the first to have become a signatory to this convention, but we've got to remind ourselves why we signed it. Why on earth did we sign up to that convention 70 years ago? It's because we cannot, as a parliament and as Australians, be complicit to an act of genocide. By allowing the denial of genocide, sadly, you become complicit to some extent. The genocide in some respects is still taking place. It takes the form of eradicating the last remnants of a people, their history and their memory. The Armenian Genocide Museum of America reports that, in 1915 across the Ottoman empire, the Armenian community maintained some 2,500 churches, 400 monasteries and 2,000 schools. As of 2015, only 34 churches and 18 schools remained in Turkey, nearly all of them in Istanbul. This effectively indicates the total eradication of the Armenian civilisation in its historic homelands. But it doesn't end there. Turkey's sister state, Azerbaijan, has taken up this very grim task of removing the last traces of the Armenian people from the region. From 1989 to 1994, the Armenian population of Azerbaijan's capital fell from 180,000 to under 100 people—from 10 per cent to about 0.1 per cent. In the early 2000s, the Azerbaijan government destroyed several thousand Armenian cross stones considered by UNESCO to be intangible pieces of cultural heritage. So let's not kid ourselves. This is continuing and it is still being perpetrated on the Armenian people. Our failure to recognise and appropriately condemn these acts of genocide in a sense creates issues for us today. Many speakers have noted the genocide that occurred against Christian and Yazidi minorities in the Middle East. How on earth are we to have credibility in standing up and fighting against an evil ideology, as described by Daesh, if we're unable to recognise the most horrific genocide that occurred against the Armenian people? I've long thought that, as there are in many countries laws that don't allow the denial of the Holocaust, similar laws should apply in those jurisdictions with respect to the Armenian genocide. It's no different. Denying that genocide—which some speakers have described as the 'grim' genocide—should be a breach of law, because any decent person and any decent society should not allow it. The member for Melbourne Ports remarked—and he stole my thunder to some extent here—that the denial of the Armenian genocide was remarked upon by one of the most evil people in living history, Adolf Hitler, who asked, when trying to justify and argue for the Holocaust: 'Who, after all, remembers the Armenians?' when he was trying to convince people of his genocidal policies. That should be enough for every civilised society. That should be enough for us as a parliament. That should be enough for us as a country. No amount of economic consequences and no amount of diplomacy should ever stop us from doing the decent thing as Australians and calling out the genocide for what it is. If the consequences with governments and countries like Turkey or Azerbaijan mean that economic consequences flow, I say so be it—and I know the Australian people will back this parliament all the way when taking that approach. Debate adjourned. BILLS 177 BILLS Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018 177

Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018

Second Reading 177 18:56 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen I rise to speak to the Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018. The government's penalty rates cuts have hit regional Victorian workers very hard, hurting the standard of living of over 147,000 Victorians. Under this government, over 15,000 McEwen residents who are working in retail, fast food, pharmacy and hospitality are worse off. Our electorate of McEwen is one of the fastest growing regions in the nation. But, while we are growing, we also have amongst the lowest income levels. One in six working residents of McEwen work in the retail and hospitality industries. That means that one in six people in McEwen are up to $3,273 a year worse off under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government penalty rate cuts. Across my electorate I've spoken to countless residents who are concerned about this government's cruel cuts to penalty rates. Not only are they concerned for their own futures, but many parents and grandparents come up and say that they're worried about what's in store for their kids. They ask how their kids are going to be able to afford to buy a home, put food on the table or afford a holiday or some of life's little luxuries, when they go to work and, through this government's action, their penalty rates have been cut. Time and time again it's the older generation who are standing up for the younger generation and watching them get less and less under this government. They're wondering about what happens to families already under financial stress with the high cost of living and the high cost of housing. They see them having to work two and three jobs just to make ends meet. They're wondering whether, with all these cuts—the government's war on hardworking Australians—their grandchildren will ever be able to afford retirement. It is heartbreaking. This government is happy to throw future generations under the bus, to make them struggle to get off the ground in an environment where they're on the back foot from day one. Everyday Australians are working tirelessly in our communities to make ends meet, yet the government has no problem in ripping money out of their back pockets—no problem at all. Let's remember that, at the time this was happening, those opposite gave themselves a tax cut of a minimum of $8,000—$8,000 to the highest paid workers in the land—and they took away penalty rates for hardworking Australians on low to middle incomes. It's an absolute disgrace, but it is what we've seen and come to expect from a government that cares nothing about ordinary Australians. Penalty rates affect real people in every corner of Australia, and the government refuses to open its eyes to the damage it's doing. We all know that the Liberals mantra to people suffering is, 'Just get a better job; get rich parents'. That doesn't work in the real world. We on this side understand not only that that is not always possible but also that we rely on workers doing these jobs. We understand that those working in retail, hospitality, fast food or even pharmacies may be holding down two or three jobs at a time just to pay the bills. We understand that those industries are here to stay and, for that, we must ensure that workers who are away from their homes and families on Sundays, who work hard to serve us on our days off, get a fair go. When my father worked at the Herald Sun printing room, which he did for over 35 years, he would go to bed after a full night's work just as we were getting up in the morning. During my time at the RACV driving tow trucks, I worked Christmas Day and countless weekends—day shifts and night shifts. I know firsthand how difficult it is and the impact it has when you miss out on family birthdays or Christmas events—all the things that normal people get to share. Working unsocial hours just to put food on the table takes a toll. It means giving up normal family life, missing out on what we in Australia value, but for many in our community it's the only way they can afford to live. The government have had countless opportunities to protect penalty rates and, each time, they have voted against them. If we keep this government around, Australian workers in retail, fast food, hospitality and pharmacy will continue to have their penalty rates cut—next July, the July after that and the July after that. Everything is going up in Australia, except wages. It's not good enough. Time and time again we hear the government say, 'We respect the independent umpire.' But just ask the thousands of truck drivers who had the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, the independent umpire, taken away. They'll tell you that the government believe in nothing but looking after their rich mates and bankers. You've only to look at what they've done in government. At every single opportunity they've attacked workers and families for the benefit of the big end of town and banks. Enough is enough! Australians, right across the land, are calling for an election now to end the mess that is this conservative government. 19:01 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Tonight I wish to speak on behalf of the 12,462 people in my electorate who have been affected by cuts to their penalty rates under this coalition government. One in five people who live in Paterson work in retail, hospitality, accommodation and other industries that are affected by these cuts. These are some of the most vulnerable members of our community. Contrary to what the government might believe, these are real people, with real families, who rely on their penalty rates to raise their families, pay their mortgages—that's if they can afford to have a mortgage—pay electricity bills, buy food and pay the many other bills that are going up and up under this government. As of 1 July this year, the second round of penalty rate cuts has impacted some of the lowest paid and most vulnerable workers in Paterson. On average, those in this group of over 12,000 people lost $77 a week. While on the surface that might not seem like much to some people, it can be the difference between living above or below the poverty line. Seventy-seven dollars a week, or $4,004 a year, is not a small sum of money to many people in my electorate; in fact, it's a big sum of money, especially coming into Christmas. It's the price of filling up the car with petrol every week, or buying some of the groceries for the family, or paying a child's sporting fees for the week. Fundamentally, many of my constituents rely on this sum of money to survive. The cost of living is going up but workers' pay rates have been stagnating, and the Abbot-Turnbull-Morrison government doesn't seem to care. The 2017 Universities Australia Student Finances Survey showed that one in five students in regional areas, like my electorate of Paterson, regularly go without food and other necessities because of financial hardship. The same survey revealed that the majority of students, 83 per cent, support themselves through work—and that's a good thing. Students from regional areas, like those in my electorate, face significant shortfalls between their income and their expenses, yet the coalition government is doing absolutely nothing about it. While the Prime Minister may never know what it's like to rely on $77 a week just to get by, he should be ashamed of himself for imposing it on families, who know the pain very well. Seven hundred thousand workers in Australia are affected by cuts to penalty rates. And while this private member's bill was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition quite some time ago, it remains increasingly evident how important this bill is. Unlike the Morrison government, Labor understands that penalty rates are not a luxury—they are very much a necessity. I am proud to stand with the Leader of the Opposition as part of a really united team that is committed to restoring penalty rates in the first 100 days of a Labor Shorten government. In real terms, this is what these cuts mean. It is actually interesting. I was at the airport last night coming to Canberra. There were big lines in the security queue because of the weather. The wind had delayed flights, and there were people all over the airport. There were queues, big waits, and people were frustrated. I overheard one of the security people who was at the X-ray machine looking at the luggage. She said to the other one, 'I think we'll be here to well beyond 10.30 or 11.00 tonight,' with a tone that implied that they had been there for many hours and they would be working overtime. She said to her colleague, 'Thank goodness it's a Sunday,' also implying they were being paid penalty rates. That's the difference—when people really are being put upon to change their lives, to work outside what most of us would consider a normal working week. One of the other reference points I often make in this argument is that when children stop going to school, Monday to Friday, generally 9 to 3, then maybe we will be able to say there is no such thing as penalty hours or penalty rates. But I hope that never happens, and I would suggest that Monday to Friday, roughly 9 to 5, is still regarded as the working week. People that operate largely outside of those hours should be remunerated for the effort and the disadvantage that that causes for some of them and their families. To the 700,000 Australians who have been affected, I say to you: your voice matters, your living conditions matter, your vote counts and so do your penalty rates. Debate adjourned. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:07