2018-12-04 45 1 7 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 4 December 2018

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 1 12:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I seek leave to move the following motion: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent private Members’ business order of the day No. 8 relating to the High Speed Rail Planning Authority Bill 2018 standing in the name of the Member for Grayndler being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business for passage through all stages by 1.30 pm today. Leave not granted. Mr ALBANESE R36 I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Grayndler from moving the following motion forthwith: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent private Members’ business order of the day No. 8 relating to the High Speed Rail Planning Authority Bill 2018 standing in the name of the Member for Grayndler being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business for passage through all stages by 1.30 pm today. This suspension of standing orders will be seconded by my colleague and high-speed rail advocate the member for Indi. The reason we are raising this issue again today is the failure of the government to advance this project in the five years in which they have held office. Prior to 2013 we had a comprehensive study of high-speed rail from Brisbane through to Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra. That study went into a great deal of detail, down to the design of where the stations would be. It found a positive economic benefit. For example, it found between Sydney and Melbourne a benefit of $2.50—that is, a benefit greater than double the expenditure for that investment. So the work has been done. That work also found that a journey from Sydney to Melbourne or from Sydney to Brisbane—both of which are top-10 aviation routes in the world—would take under three hours. It also found that it would make a big difference to decentralisation and to regional economic development, not the least of which right here in the national capital. It would also be of enormous benefit for great cities like Newcastle, as well as for the Albury-Wodonga region. It would make an enormous difference. Putting that region under an hour from Melbourne would change the whole economics of jobs and opportunities in that region, which is why we are supporting this. We tried to establish a process that would go beyond just a term of government or indeed the presence of any particular side in government. After that report we established the High Speed Rail Advisory Group. That included the former member for Farrer, the former Leader of the National Party and former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer. It included Jennifer Westacott, the head of the Business Council of Australia. So, for those people who say, 'Oh, this is just some airy-fairy project,' it is not. It is about economic growth and development. It's about jobs. It's about decentralisation. It's about dealing with urban congestion. It also included representatives like the head of the Australasian Railway Association. It included representatives of local government. The fact is that what you need—and the advisory group found this—to drive the project, because it is interjurisdictional, is an authority that crosses the Commonwealth government and the governments of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT, as well as local government representatives. We provided, in the 2013 budget, funding for that authority of $54 million. That $54 million was cut by the incoming Abbott government. It was cut because they cut every single dollar for any rail project that wasn't under construction. So, as well as the Melbourne Metro, the Cross River Rail, Perth rail and Launceston light rail, the funding was cut for high-speed rail. And yet, as Australians who travel overseas know, anyone who is in London and wants to get to Paris goes on the train. Anyone who's in Rome and wants to get to Milan goes on the train. Anyone who's in Tokyo and wants to go to Osaka goes on the train. People who want to go from Beijing to Shanghai go on the train. The whole world, every continent on this planet, is building high-speed rail—in Africa, South America, North America, Europe and Asia. The only occupied continent which isn't is right here in Australia. And the fact is that, just like renewables, the technology of today and the future is getting cheaper. It's getting more effective. The trains are getting faster and more efficient both in terms of travel times and boosting productivity and in terms of their impact on the environment. But what Infrastructure Australia found last year, in a report to the government that it has ignored, is that you need to preserve the corridor now, because, if you don't preserve the corridor now, it will have an enormous impact in terms of cost. The 2013 study by Infrastructure Australia found that the eventual cost will increase by $21 billion if we don't preserve the corridor now. Our big study found, in terms of the viability of the project, that travel on the east coast of Australia is forecast to grow by about 1.8 per cent every year over the next two decades, an increase of 60 per cent by 2035. East coast trips will double from 152 million in 2009 to 355 million over coming decades. We need to plan right now. We need to preserve the corridor right now. We need that intergovernmental cooperation right now. Indeed, the Premier of New South Wales said this on 23 August 2017: Of course we would love to see high speed rail servicing our State but for this to be viable it would need to travel beyond NSW and it would require federal involvement. She was right then, but she's wrong today, because today, in the lead-up to a state election in New South Wales, she's floating these tiny little routes just in New South Wales for regional centres, with no dollars and no jurisdiction, no governance arrangements and no plan to actually get it done. So once again, in the lead-up to an election, we have that. It's just a cynical exercise. That is why we had a serious process. That is why I appointed Tim Fischer to try and drag the dinosaurs over there who sit in the coalition across to modernity, to the future, to what we need. Tim Fischer was an absolutely genuine supporter of high-speed rail and remains so today, as does the business community, as does local government and as do state governments. But what it needs is some national leadership. The opportunity is there with this legislation. I have moved this legislation five times since 2013, and it has lapsed because those opposite haven't been interested in it. We know from the leak to the Herald Sun that in this year's budget they allocated $1.5 billion for high-speed rail. They haven't made the announcement yet, but we know that they put the funding aside. What for? We're not quite sure. Well, let's get on with establishing the authority, because the first thing you need to do before you can build the train is to have the corridor, and that costs money. That costs dollars. We know the money is there; we know we should set up an authority. Today, why doesn't the parliament unite—Labor, crossbenchers and coalition members—to actually vote for something that the Australian people overwhelmingly support? That's why the Premier of New South Wales has discovered this issue and done a little leak to the Herald today about this issue, without a plan, without an idea of how it gets progressed. Well, this is how it gets progressed. It is not just me who says this; Jennifer Westacott from the Business Council of Australia says this; Tim Fischer says this; the Australasian Railway Association says this; the Rail, Tram and Bus Union says this; local government says this. This is an opportunity. We can have this legislation through by 1.30 today. What that would do is send a message that this parliament will do its job, that it's prepared to act in the interests of Australians, not just engage in squabbling about who's doing what and who's on top of who over there in the coalition. This is an opportunity, and we're giving it to the government, to adopt this, pass the suspension motion and put the bill through. I thank the member for Indi for seconding this motion. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 12:11 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi I'm very pleased to second this motion. It's the right time to do the right thing. This is a nation-building activity. The parliament has had inquiries into this. For many personal reasons to do with me being the federal member for Indi, I'm very happy to support this motion. Colleagues, in 50 years time we're going to look back upon this particular parliament and see so many lost opportunities. Many, many times I've stood in this parliament and said to my colleagues on the other side, and particularly to the National Party, 'Where's your vision for this country?' And today, with this motion, I'm calling on my colleagues, particularly from the National Party, to show us your vision, to show us that you've got a plan, to show us you really get rural and regional Australia and where we want to be in 50 years time. It's about population. It's about the drivers of economic growth. It's about being brave and letting rural and regional Australia take its place in this great nation. So this authority is just the beginning to say that the National Party in particular has a plan for the future of this country. That's the political reason, I suppose, but there are really good other reasons. The parliament itself this year, while I've been here, has had two inquiries which basically support what we're trying to do. Probably the most important one was from the ITC, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, and its report, Harnessing value, delivering infrastructure, a bipartisan report that says we've actually got to do something in a national way about what's happening in the cities and what's happening in the region. We've got to build infrastructure that connects. There were some creative ways about how we could fund that. So that report is before the parliament. The second report I would like to refer to is Regions at the ready, which talks about a national approach to building infrastructure and developing the regions so that they can take their rightful place in the country. Both reports have been presented to this parliament and we're still waiting for the government to come back and tell us what they think about the recommendations, but they sit there. The third reason, which is probably the most important for me, is that when I got elected as member for Indi my commitment was to put my electorate first. So I'm standing here backing a motion from the Labor Party because I look to the government and I say: 'Well, if not you, who is going to build us this high-speed rail? Who is going to preserve the corridor? And if you're not going to do it now, government, after five years, when are you going to do it? So, if not you, who?' I say to the people in my electorate: 'Who else is standing up for you for infrastructure that's actually going to make a difference to our community? Who are the visionary people in north-east Victoria who come to this parliament and say, "I get the future and I will stand up and I will put Indi first"'? Related to putting Indi first, to get us the infrastructure that we need, I also would like to acknowledge the work of one of my constituents, Tim Fischer. The last time I spoke to Tim Fischer we were launching his book about steam engines. I made a speech about the importance of high-speed rail and the opportunity that steam gives to us in the regions. I'm saying that high-speed rail will give us the same impetus that steam gave a couple of centuries ago. I think I saw Tim sadly shake his head. He has almost given up on it, because the National Party, the government, the coalition were his party and for five years they haven't been able to do it. So I say: 'Government, if not you, who will speak up for the regions? Who? When will we put in infrastructure that delivers long-term benefits at the centre of what we need to do?' I say to the government that now is the right time. You're going to have the MYEFO report and, according to the member for Grayndler, there is some money there that we might be able to do something with. We're bringing the budget forward to April. Please, come out with a strategy for regional Australia. Show us how for north-east Victoria, for southern New South Wales, for Geelong and for Newcastle you're actually understanding what the regions are needing and you're putting us front and centre, because clearly the government hasn't got it. They haven't done it and I don't think they're going to do it. I say to my community, look to the crossbench and look to those of us who stand here today and say high-speed rail is the future for the regions. We need to invest in the corridor. Do you know what we really need to do? What the government really needs to do is say to regional Australia: 'We understand what you need. For the next 100 years we're going to build the infrastructure that is going to put you at the centre of Australia's future.' 12:16 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell The government doesn't support the suspension of standing orders, because the government already has a significant business program on the agenda today. I note for the benefit of the House, and I would say to the member for Grayndler, that one thing we do respect is his passion for policy and issues. He has a genuine passion for policy and issues. It is refreshing. It is a different style of leadership than that of the Leader of the Opposition. It is rare in the opposition, but we welcome it. We welcome a refreshing new take on policy and issues from the member for Grayndler, in stark contrast to the Leader of the Opposition's approach on policy. The government, when you look at the agenda for today, has put forward some very important matters that the House needs to finalise its consideration on before the end of the year, the first of which is the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill. This is the second time that the opposition has attempted to defer consideration of this bill. Why is the opposition seeking to push back consideration of the family and domestic violence leave bill? It's first on the agenda. We need to pass this bill through the House. This is a reform of this government that will allow for domestic violence and family leave for the first time in Australia from the federal level. Not once but twice now the opposition has said, 'We have more important business than the family and domestic violence leave bill that we want considered by the House.' The government doesn't agree. The government agrees that this should be the first priority for today. We have only a few speakers left on all sides. We can pass this bill. It can go straight to the Senate and, hopefully, we can get this passed by the end of this year. Wouldn't that be a good thing? I think the House would agree that that is a very important bill. When you look at the other matters on the Notice Paper for today, we are talking about the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill and the Intelligence Services Amendment Bill. These bills are national security related matters. We know that the opposition is attempting at the moment to politicise the area of national security. They are not agreeing with the government's bill, which is deliberately designed to give the powers to our agencies that they need and that they are requesting, to deal with the difficult matter of encryption of serious crime, serious terrorism and serious matters like paedophilia. We would ask for their support on such an important piece of legislation. We need their support on such an important piece of legislation. We should all be in this parliament to be on a unity ticket. But to suggest it isn't a priority for the parliament or isn't a priority for this House before the end of this year, when our national security agencies on a daily basis are now saying that 80 to 90 per cent of the traffic of terror-related suspects is now encrypted and they are unable to access it, should really put into perspective for every member of this House why we are asking for this legislation to be considered before the end of the year. Dr Aly interjecting— Mr HAWKE HWO Yes, I will take the interjection from the member for Cowan. You might want to have consideration of various elements of the protections and safeguards in this legislation. That's fine, but you can't deny that it is an important and necessary matter for today for us to consider. We need to consider it, and the government needs to be allowed to get on with its agenda, as well. That isn't to say that we don't agree with high-speed rail. I have to say that we do respect the member for Indi and the passion she evokes for centres like Albury and Wodonga, which stand to benefit the most from greater rural and regional infrastructure. That's why this government has pursued the inland rail program. Today, the real reason that the House is seeing this motion in an attempt to change the business paper is because of the action of the New South Wales Liberal government. I will read from a press release that the New South Wales Liberal government issued today about high-speed rail. This is real government action: The NSW Government will start work on a fast rail network in the next term of government, linking regional centres to each other and Sydney … So, when the member for Grayndler says this is urgent and we need to do it today, well, the New South Wales government is doing it. They have appointed Professor Andrew McNaughton to confirm the most appropriate routes, the train speeds and the station locations. The member for Grayndler says that these are just small routes and small things. This is the reality of how high-speed rail will actually work in Australia. It will be by increment. It will not be by one big bang. It will not be done in one big hit. It will be from point to point, from viable centre to viable centre. That is the reality of how high-speed rail will happen in Australia. This government announcement that we have seen made today—already made, before this motion came to the House—is saying that the routes they are identifying are, for example, the northern route, including the Central Coast and Newcastle, the southern inland route to Goulburn and Canberra, the western route to Lithgow, Bathurst and Orange, and the southern coastal route, including Wollongong and Nowra. You can respect a Liberal-National government in New South Wales that is in surplus, that has its budget under control, that has the money now to pursue real improvements to people's lives with a fast-rail network—and they're doing that work. They are announcing it today and getting on with it, now that they have their budget under control. For the past five years it has been this government that has had to get its own budget under control after the fiscal mess we saw from the opposition when they were in government. Mr Dick 53517 By doubling the debt. You doubled the debt. Mr HAWKE HWO If you are concerned about debt, you will be happy to know that we will be in surplus next year and we will be able to start paying down that debt. But that's no thanks to you. You have opposed every savings measure this government has put forward for five years. Members of the opposition have fought us at every turn when we have tried to get the government's budget into surplus. Nonetheless, with all the resistance in the Senate, with all of the resistance from the Labor Party, with all of their big-spending plans, we will have the budget in surplus in the next budget. Then, if you are very concerned about debt—and it sounds like members of the opposition are—we will be in a position to start paying down that debt, most of which was racked up under your government. This is an important matter. There is no doubt about it. We have state governments acting on this matter around the country. We're also acting as a federal government to invest in rail across the country as part of our $70 billion infrastructure plan. We are seeing regional centres, we have our studies out and we also have our business cases coming back to government next year. As the opposition is fond of saying, if we don't have business cases for these projects we can't act as a government. There is no need today for us to do anything other than continue to pursue what all governments are doing—that is, invest in the business cases and in prioritising the experts in planning. For it to be viable, this will have to be one of the most significantly planned infrastructure projects in the nation's history. It can't just emerge overnight. It will have to be done from regional centre to regional centre. It will have to be economically viable and well managed by government, with their finances. All of those steps are being undertaken under the stewardship of the Liberal and National federal government, under the Liberal state government in New South Wales, and also with other governments in the country that are working hard on this. For today, when you look at the government's schedule of important matters, whether it be the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018—one of the most important reforms we can see in domestic violence in Australia at the moment—or the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2018, which we have to get done, or the Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018, clearly the priority today has to be the work of the federal government. There is no need to preserve a corridor today. The member for Grayndler is not thinking clearly when he says we have to preserve the corridor today. What does that actually mean? We won't be preserving any corridor today. We have to work very hard with our agencies. We now have Infrastructure Australia, we have the Inland Rail proceeding, we have billions of dollars of infrastructure going into rail around the country and we have the state government announcing an expert panel to design routes. All of the work that needs to be done to support an infrastructure project of this scale is underway and being done. It's being financed through this government and state government. For the Labor Party to come in here today—it's political and it's reactionary. We know that the member for Grayndler has a habit of claiming credit for infrastructure, decisions and announcements that are not his own. The New South Wales government has, today, made an announcement and this reactionary move in the House from the member for Grayndler is pretty transparent. I think members in this House understand that. We respect the member for Indi's longstanding view about her community and the work she is doing to fight to get that infrastructure connected to her towns and her important centres in her electorate. That's what regional communities want: they want governments that will do the work. We're doing the work. The New South Wales Liberal-Nationals state government is doing the work—absolutely. This House can be confident that work will proceed without any need to interrupt the important consideration on the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018, the Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018 and these national security matters. That's what the federal government is for: national security. We need to get on with these bills. We need to pass the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 as soon as possible. I hope we do not see a third attempt to delay this bill by the Labor Party. There have been two attempts already to delay the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018. We don't want to see a third. We want to proceed and we want to pass this bill. The government will be opposing the suspension of standing orders. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion, as moved by the member for Grayndler, be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. Debate adjourned. BILLS 5 BILLS Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018 5

Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018

Report from Committee 5 12:27 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on the Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr HASTIE 260805 by leave—I am pleased to present the committee's report entitled Advisory Report on the Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018. This bill will improve and modernise the legislative framework that governs the use of force by the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) to address key operational challenges and issues. The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives by the Hon. Paul Fletcher MP, Minister for Families and Social Services, on 29 November 2018. On 29 November 2018, Senator the Hon Marise Payne, Minister for Foreign Affairs, referred the bill to the committee for inquiry and report The bill makes two main amendments. First it will enable the minister to specify additional persons outside Australia who may be protected by an ASIS staff member or agent. Second, it provides that an ASIS staff member or agent performing specified activities outside Australia will be able to use reasonable and necessary force in the performance of an ASIS function. In this report the committee notes the extensive consultation process that ASIS undertook with the IGIS in the drafting of the bill. In judging the legitimacy, reasonableness and transparency—including appropriate oversight—of the bill the committee has had regard to the: •   comprehensive consultation and decision-making process that must be undertaken by the minister before authorising the use of these powers, •   guidelines surrounding the use of these powers, and •   oversight provided by referral of these guidelines to the IGIS and this committee. The committee notes that the oversight requirements in the bill replicate existing oversight requirements and provide an appropriate level of transparency recognising the necessary sensitivities of ASIS activities and operations. The committee is satisfied with the provisions contained in the bill and recommends that the Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018 be passed. May I commend the Director-General of ASIS, Mr Paul Symon, for his engagement with both sides of the committee—coalition and Labor members. We appreciate the time he took to explain this to us. I commend this report to the House. 12:30 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I'd just like to second the comments that were made by the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security with respect to the Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018. I think that now what the Australian people should know, and what this parliament should understand, is that this legislation clearly is needed by the security agency in question, which is ASIS, to keep Australians safe, to allow it to discharge its duties. Often in this committee, with the subject matter that we talk about, we're very constrained in what we can say, but I can assure the Australian public that, on an ongoing basis through this committee process, these sorts of legislation—and this report that we're looking at and the legislation which will go through this House—are subjected to intense scrutiny. A bill like this is subjected to the sort of scrutiny and consultation that may not be seen in other parliaments. I'd like to commend in particular the chair of the committee, the member for Canning, not just for the work that he's done with this Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018 and this committee process but for his chairship during the entire parliamentary term. I say this in the context of some discussion in the media about bipartisanship. Bipartisanship is not easy. Bipartisanship is hard. It's easy take the low road. It's easy to take the easy pathway out, to point a finger at one side and make accusations about one person being, say, 'weak on terrorism' or, it might be, about another person being 'weak on security'. The parliament and the Australian people should know that this bipartisan committee, which has looked at something like 18 or 19 pieces of legislation, is almost unique in the Western world for the outcomes that it has delivered to the people in keeping the Australian community safe, plus the safeguards that have been built into this legislation. I look at the United States of America, where they have a dysfunctional oversight system, where they have chairs off briefing the President of the United States, or disunity. What you can see with respect to disunity is that you have the enemy that seeks to exploit that disunity. So, when people ask, 'Why are you bipartisan on this committee?' the answer is that it's because we put the national interest first. When we look at security, when we look at legislation that's brought before this parliament, we do so in the national interest, and it's only by looking at national security in a bipartisan way that we can give it its full just measure, its full consideration. As I said, it is easy to be partisan in this place, and it's easy to get the media headlines when you're not bipartisan. It's hard to be bipartisan in this place, but that's what this country's craving. It wants bipartisanship; it wants a way forward; it wants people working together in the national interest; and this committee gives that to it. COMMITTEES 6 COMMITTEES Procedure Committee 6 Report 6 12:33 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee's report entitled Maintenance of the standing orders: final report, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr PASIN 240756 by leave—The House is entitled to expect that the Procedure Committee closely monitors the day-to-day operations and effectiveness of the House procedures. The reference typically adopted by the committee early in each parliament—to inquire into the maintenance of the standing orders—provides a formal mechanism for us to do exactly that. In our interim report earlier this year we identified some relatively minor technical issues and inconsistencies in the standing orders and suggested amendments to address them. In the preparation of that report, we identified some additional issues that we felt warranted further consideration and consultation with colleagues. The final report reflects our deliberations on some of these issues. The committee's views were informed by a number of private round tables with key office holders and interested members, where we were able to test our proposals and obtain considered feedback. On behalf of the committee, I wish to thank all those who participated in our discussions. Not every issue canvassed by the committee resulted in a proposal for change. Some areas where we contemplated change but ultimately determined to maintain the status quo will continue to be closely monitored. I'd like to conclude by thanking the deputy chair, the member for Oxley, and my committee colleagues for their consideration of these matters. I commend the report to the House. BILLS 7 BILLS Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 7

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

Second Reading 7 12:36 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman A trajectory was sweeping the union movement, not just here but worldwide, for the implementation of paid family and domestic violence leave, a trajectory that has brought us to this moment, a trajectory that is not yet finished by any stretch of the imagination. There is still so much to be done. Ludo McFerran began the Safe at Home, Safe at Work project and continued to work side by side with me and others in the union movement to pursue paid domestic violence leave; to ensure there are educated and informed workers, managers and employers; to destigmatise the issue within our society; and to protect and help people experiencing violence and survivors with practical, sensible effective measures. Ludo was awarded the Australian Human Rights Commission's community award for her work pioneering policy on support systems to enable women and children to stay safe. I am proud to call Ludo McFerran a colleague and friend and I take this opportunity to thank her. A couple of years after that fateful meeting at the university, I again attended a union meeting. This time, however, it was to celebrate the first ever enterprise bargain agreement clause allowing for 10 days paid domestic violence leave. This time it was with the mighty ASU in Victoria. They had successfully negotiated the leave with the Surf Coast Shire. Sharon Karyasa was one of the shire employees, a union delegate who helped negotiate the clause. She was a young and committed woman who had suffered terrible abuse at the hands of her partner. I first met Sharon at a union women's meeting in Geelong. I had been travelling the country promoting the ACTU's family and domestic violence clause, encouraging unions to include it in their bargaining, and Sharon heard me explain why I thought it was an important part of tackling the terrible scourge. Sharon took it completely to heart. She discussed it with her ASU organiser, who supported her, and together they made it clear to the shire HR team that they wanted a paid family and domestic violence leave clause in the EBA. Sharon recalled to me later that at first the HR manager laughed out loud at her, derisively telling her and the organiser that they were dreaming. But Sharon was not giving up, and the ASU was standing with her. If that HR manager thought Sharon was dreaming then that dream became a reality. The Surf Coast Shire council became the first public sector employer in Australia to offer special paid leave of up to 20 days a year to employees who experienced domestic violence. The council eventually listened, and heard and recognised that employees sometimes face violence in their personal life which affects their work attendance and ultimately their performance. Surf Coast Shire CEO at that time, Mark Davies, said that they had agreed to the clause to ensure that the council was an employer of choice. He said at that time: Including this family violence clause in Surf Coast Shire's new EBA is a socially progressive measure that shows our commitment to the wellbeing of all staff. He went on to say: The personal toll of domestic violence alone is unacceptable. It also poses a cost to employers and organisations. … The best way to reduce any costs is to ensure any staff suffering are supported. ASU Victorian assistant branch secretary, Lisa Darmanin, said the paid leave would help survivors hold down stable jobs and maintain their career paths. I want to thank Lisa Darmanin and the ASU more broadly for being champions of promoting and implementing paid family and domestic violence leave. In particular, I would like to thank Linda White, the national assistant secretary, and Natalie Lang, the New South Wales branch secretary. They picked up the baton and pursued with vigour, along with other unions and the ACTU, the fight to have 10 days of paid domestic violence leave in the National Employment Standards, a measure I am proud to say that a Labor government will implement. Family violence could interrupt women's lives, including their work, and keeping an income through such times is paramount to their wellbeing. The last thing someone trying to flee domestic violence needs is to lose their job and their economic independence. Research fairly and squarely shows that having a job and an income means far better outcomes than struggling without money. Two-thirds of family violence victims are employed, and direct costs to employers include absenteeism, staff turnover and lost productivity. We knew that tackling family violence needed a multifaceted approach, including in the workplace. The Australian Council of Trade Unions Women's Committee took up the challenge with gusto and developed a domestic violence policy that was endorsed by the ACTU congress in 2012 and has led to domestic violence clauses being included as part of the standard claims by many unions. As a result of collective bargaining, millions of workers are now protected by paid domestic violence clauses across all industries, like retail, public transport, education, manufacturing, maritime, banking and finance, and the public sector. Australian employers are increasingly prepared to negotiate these clauses, including companies like Carlton & United Breweries, Qantas, NAB, IKEA and Telstra. Most states now offer paid family and domestic violence leave to their public servants. In New Zealand, there is legislated paid leave that guarantees 10 days of leave for all workers experiencing violence who need to escape. With the advent of the Fair Work Commission's ruling, all awards now have unpaid leave. That is a disappointing outcome, like this bill, given the fact that paid leave is what is needed. For the naysayers and doomsayers who abhorrently say this will be used to take sickies, I will repeat what the wonderful Rosie Batty said about that. She was with me once at a press conference when a journalist asked me that inevitable question. She elbowed me aside, leapt in front of the cameras and said, 'Do you think any woman would make up a story that she had been beaten and subjected to the pain and suffering of domestic violence just to get the day off? I don't think so.' I would like to take this opportunity to thank Rosie for the support she gave to the campaign for paid leave and her contribution to raising the bar on dealing with family and domestic violence. She is a champion. At any rate, most employers would be able to ask for some sort of proof of family violence from police, GPs, district nurses, lawyers or support agencies. The bill offers unpaid leave for only five days. Fleeing domestic violence actually costs money. Research shows that escaping an abusive relationship costs $18,000 at least and takes 141 hours, almost all of which are during working hours. That's for things like going to court, dealing with estate agents or emergency services, attending doctors and counselling appointments, seeing a lawyer, moving house and talking to the kids' school teachers. It all takes time, and time is money. Finding that money and time can be hard. Just knowing that there is an avenue for you to talk to your employer about it, that there is no shame and that your employer can help by offering some much-needed leave with pay makes a huge difference. Everyone who has this leave is telling us just that. The testimonies are compelling. Of course, learning that your employee is suffering from domestic violence can be challenging in itself, which is why it is necessary to ensure that a contact officer, human resource manager or line manager is trained to deal with people experiencing family violence in a confidential and respectful way. Such training must be delivered by experts in the area. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Sue Wilkinson and the Darebin City Council in my electorate for winning a prestigious WorkSafe award for their workplace training and management of domestic and family violence and for ensuring that their workers have access to 20 days of paid leave. Darebin City Council are amongst the hundreds of workplaces that offer paid leave to their employees. That is because they know that paid leave is vital for their employees' welfare but also because, as employers, it makes them an employer of choice and contributes their vital share of the complex solutions to the terrible problem of family and domestic violence. But we need paid leave in the National Employment Standards to cover all workers who are not able to bargain for it. One vital part of this important journey, which began so many years ago, has been to take the issue of paid leave to the world. Just last year I had the honour of working with my international union sisters and brothers, along with Ludo McFerran and her international network, with international groups of employers and governments from right around the world to ensure that family and domestic violence leave was recognised by the International Labour Organization. I am so proud to say that our preliminary work was rewarded with recognition that the workplace is a vital part of that solution and that bargaining for leave is important. Other countries are now beginning to follow suit. This bill does fall short, as it provides for only five days of unpaid leave. I'm proud to say that the best outcome for working women and men will be when a Shorten Labor government is elected and we legislate 10 days paid leave in the National Employment Standards, because, without paid leave, you can't leave. 12:45 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide I don't think that I'm alone amongst Australians in that my feelings about the national crisis that we face when we look at domestic violence rates in Australia have moved from sorrow and despair to now sitting squarely in white hot anger. If we have a look at what is happening in Australian society today, in 2018, we see that the statistics are stark and they are horrifying: more than one woman killed each and every week in 2018 in the Australia that we preside over. So I think we in the parliament need to ask ourselves: are we doing absolutely everything that we can be doing to stop this national disgrace? Sadly, I believe that the answer to that is no. We come here today to debate a bill which, in effect, means that a woman who is trying to flee domestic violence will not be punished by losing her job if she needs to take five days of unpaid leave. Well, woo hoo, this is a step in the right direction, but it is a teeny-tiny step in the right direction. I believe that every parliament, every member of parliament, every elected official should be asking themselves: what more could we be doing to help prevent the tragedies that are taking place far too often? Sadly, I think that there will be many, many answers that come forward. Perhaps when the Prime Minister talks, as he does so often at the moment, about the Canberra bubble, we should ask ourselves: are we living in the Canberra bubble when we are not, as a parliament, standing up and debating and discussing solutions to this crisis each and every day, when we're not taking the action which all of the evidence and the experts say is required to be taken if we are going to support those brave and courageous women who are trying to flee the situations that they find themselves in? All of that evidence and all of those experts suggest that, when it comes to leave from the workplace, it needs to be paid leave and that five days is not adequate; it needs to be 10 days of paid leave. I know that we've all heard statistics, and they stop having their full meaning when we throw them around all the time. We know that, in Australia, at least 55 women have been murdered in 2018. In fact, we know that some 63 women have been killed by acts of violence, 55 in domestic violence situations. We know that intimate partner violence is the greatest health risk for Australian women aged 25 to 44. This is quite literally killing women far too often. I know that there has been progress made in recent years. There's been progress made in terms of awareness. There's been progress made in terms of taking this out of the shadows, no longer talking about this as a private issue, as a family issue, but recognising that this is a national crisis. But, whilst there has been progress made, we still see these statistics and we know that each and every one of these statistics represents a human tragedy—a woman's life lost and, in many cases, their children's lives forever altered. We know in too many of these cases that it is continuing a cycle, which we know can have profound effects later in life. In the local area that I'm so lucky to represent, the electorate of Adelaide, The Advertiser ran an article on the weekend in which they listed the top 10 metropolitan postcodes for domestic violence related offences. Two of these, in metropolitan Adelaide, are postcodes that I have the privilege to represent in this House. Of course, what that means is that too many people whom I have been elected to represent in this House are finding themselves subjected to domestic and family violence. Postcode 5000, Adelaide City, and postcode 5084, Kilburn and Blair Athol, are among the top 10 metropolitan postcodes. We also know that South Australia Police investigated more than 10,800 crimes linked to domestic violence last financial year. That's just South Australia Police—10,800 crimes. South Australia Police Chief Superintendent Doug Barr told The Advertiser that many people thought of domestic violence as assault, but the new data shows that it is so much more than that. Examples among the 10,000 crimes include brandishing a gun and threatening a partner or a child; endangering a family member by driving at them or forcing them into a car; releasing intimate images of a partner; spray-painting offensive language on their fence; sending excessive harassing text messages; and breaking into ex-partners' homes and stealing items. This has gone on far too long and we as a parliament must challenge ourselves: what more can we do? We know that this is an issue that needs to be tackled on a range of different levels. Primary prevention is so incredibly important if we are going to change attitudes and ensure that future generations don't see these horrifying levels of this crime. Our law enforcement and judicial system needs to be best equipped to appropriately deal with these issues. There are serious issues when it comes to accommodation, when it comes to refuge, when it comes to support for women and their families who are fleeing this situation. In fact, just last week I received an email on behalf of one of the local churches in my electorate. It says: Dear Kate We write to you as Federal Member for Adelaide, to express our concern at the chronic shortage of crisis, social and affordable housing that is forcing women who want to flee a violent household to have nowhere to go. We have attached a photo of our congregation at the Parkside Baptist Church (Adelaide) reflecting on this issue at our services on 25 November. We were shocked to discover that domestic violence is the leading contributor to homelessness in Australia. Housing experts anticipate that if we are to be a country where every person can enjoy safe and secure housing we will need an additional 500,000 social and affordable homes by 2026. Yet present trends show that social housing is declining as a proportion of housing stock and a large number of crisis accommodation services report that they do not have sufficient resources to accommodate all those who need it, and as a result, regularly turn people away. Please make this a priority issue and keep it as priority issue until every woman, child and man fleeing violence has a safe and secure place to go. Thank you for your time. Kind regards Frances Hardy On behalf of Parkside Baptist Church Thank you, Frances and your congregation for continuing to speak out and keeping this issue on the agenda. For my part, I will represent your concerns and I will fight for more accommodation, something that I'm pleased Labor has released our policy for. We know how important safe shelter is for women and children in particular in these situations. That brings us to the bill that we're debating here today. Of course, accommodation and shelter are required if and when a woman makes a decision to leave the dangerous circumstances that she finds herself in. My concern about this bill here today is that we know that two out of three women who are experiencing domestic violence are in the workforce. That means that for many of them, when they are in controlling, abusive relationships at home, that time in the workforce is actually the only safe time that they have outside of the house. If these women are contemplating leaving this situation—and we can only imagine how hard that decision is—the statistics make it clear that fleeing an abusive domestic violence situation is when they are at their most vulnerable. It is the most dangerous time. So it is a hard decision. Anyone who says, 'Why don't they just leave?' needs to have a look at the huge range of issues that need to be considered and just how difficult this can be. If someone's contemplating leaving, there's a lot to do: finding accommodation, in many cases getting apprehended violence orders or restraining orders, in many cases making court appearances and in many cases speaking with the local law enforcement. All of these things can be incredibly time consuming. So of course, if people are going to contemplate undertaking all of this, we should not add the disincentive of them losing their ongoing pay as a result of that. If we do not have paid domestic violence leave, we are leaving these women in a situation where they have to decide whether they are going to forgo some of their salary, which they know they will be absolutely relying upon if they choose to go it alone, or whether, if they take more leave than they have, they are going to lose their jobs and start what should be a phase of rebuilding their lives in unemployment, where we know that poverty is a very real concern. That is what this parliament should be reflecting upon. We are not addressing those concerns in this bill here today. In this bill here today, all we're saying is that for five days you can leave without pay and you won't get sacked as a result of that. That is too little action, and I call upon this parliament to do more. I know that, as I said, there has been progress. That progress was highlighted just last week when ANROWS released the summary of the NCAS, the National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey. I was incredibly proud when one of our own South Australians, Arman Abrahimzadeh, spoke at the launch of this. Arman told his story as he has powerfully done previously—the story about how his father murdered his mother, about the household that he grew up in and about how he needs to see this cycle change. What we learned from this survey is that there has been some progress in some areas. We know that most Australians support gender equality and that Australians are more likely to support gender equality in 2017 than in previous surveys. We know that Australians are less likely to hold attitudes supportive of violence against women in 2017 than they were previously. But there are also some concerning results. There continues to be a decline in the number of Australians who understand that men are more likely than women to perpetrate domestic violence. A concerning proportion of Australians believe that gender inequality is exaggerated or no longer a problem. We know that, among attitudes condoning violence against women, the highest level of agreement was with the idea that women used claims of violence to gain tactical advantage in their relationships with men. We know that one in five Australians today would not be bothered if a male friend told a sexist joke about women. I'd like to thank the amazing team at ANROWS and, indeed, all of the amazing people who have been working to change attitudes, to bring about change and to provide support. You do an extraordinary job. I stand here and say: of course we'll support this teeny-tiny step that is being taken by the government, but each and every member of parliament owes it to our community to reflect upon what more we can be doing. I'm incredibly proud that, further than this, Bill Shorten and Labor have announced that we will introduce 10 days of paid leave. We know that this is what the evidence suggests. We know that this is what other jurisdictions are doing. New Zealand has already legislated guaranteeing 10 days of paid leave. Queensland, Western Australia and the ACT all offer 10 days of paid leave to public sector employees, while South Australia offers 15 and Victoria 20. There is more that we can do. I urge this parliament to do more when it comes to supporting women who are trying to leave and not seeing them crippled financially by unpaid leave, but also when it comes to accommodation, when it comes to shelter, when it comes to support, when it comes to primary prevention, when it comes to law enforcement and when it comes to our judicial system. It should be a priority for this parliament, for every state parliament and indeed for every local government. Australia cannot continue to see more than one woman killed by someone she loved or once loved and not treat it as a national emergency. I urge this government to go further than they have with this bill, and I stand proudly with my colleagues in saying that if we're lucky enough to be elected to government we will do more. 13:01 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I commend the member for Adelaide for her comments on the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018. In recent times this government and coalition governments more broadly have been the subject of accusations of gender inequality, bullying, discrimination against women, and the like. It's an image that this government is failing to shake off. Indeed, you might have thought that the government would have used this legislation to do just that. If it is the case that this legislation was brought in in an attempt to dispel the perception of the poor image on gender inequality that this government has, then this legislation falls very flat. I'll make two observations about it. Firstly, yes, the legislation is a step in the right direction. But it falls short in making it clear that this government is serious about addressing women's inequality issues. It falls short because the adoption of the Fair Work Commission's five days of unpaid domestic violence leave is at odds with perhaps 1,000 or more private businesses and other governments, at both state and international level, that already provide paid domestic leave to people in their jurisdictions. So, we're already behind what other governments are doing. You might have thought that if this government was wanting to use this legislation to reinstate its credibility with respect to the treatment of women in this country, then it might have done what has already been done, in a much fairer manner, by other jurisdictions. Secondly, I note that since this debate started—at the time there was only one government speaker listed to speak on the legislation—two or three others have come on board and spoken. Nevertheless, if government members truly believe in this legislation, why are they not in this chamber speaking in support of it? Why are they in fact evading the opportunity they have to speak in support of it? Is it because they don't really support it? Or is it because they maintain this image of a party that is completely out of step with women's issues in this country? This legislation brings recognition to the serious and very widespread issue of domestic violence. Of course, the greater effort should always be on prevention, so that supporting measures are not ever required. But, sadly, that is not—and possibly will never be—the case. That would be the ideal situation, however: if we didn't need this kind of legislation. But we do have a long way to go and, in the meantime, we need to support victims of domestic violence, who in most cases are women. The ABS estimates that two out of every three women who experience domestic violence are in the workforce. How difficult must it be for them to front up to work the day after perhaps a terrible incident in their home, and how difficult must it be for them to have to interact with their work colleagues and perhaps with customers if they are in a business that deals directly with the public? I can only begin to imagine, yet they clearly do it day in and day out around the country. According to a study that KPMG conducted in 2015-16, domestic violence costs society $1.9 billion. Again, I don't know how those figures are derived, but, quite frankly, I'm not at all surprised that we're talking about billions of dollars, and it may even be higher. What is even worse, however, is the sobering figure that has been put time and time again by members on this side of the chamber in speaking in this debate, and that is that every week one or more women lose their lives because of domestic violence. That is not to mention the psychological impact a loss of life has on the surviving children, because in most cases there are children. Nor do I know how many suicides of both women and children have their origins in domestic violence. I don't know if any studies have been undertaken with respect to that, but I suspect that, if there were, we would find that there is a link and that many of the suicides that we see around the country, sometimes years down the track, date back to a domestic violence household. As the member for Adelaide quite rightly pointed out, we also know that domestic violence is one of the key causes of homelessness. We also know that there is a real concern for women who suffer in silence. Because they might be further abused, because of shame or because of their need to protect their children, a lot of the women who are subjected to domestic violence never, ever speak out, and they live a life of misery and stay in the relationship that they are in. I could talk about personal cases that I have been directly or indirectly involved with, but I won't go there. But I say this as someone who has spoken to families that have had a serious domestic violence issue. I've seen the impact it has on those families—both the children and the women. For those who do need the domestic violence leave that this legislation provides—or the 10 days of paid leave that this side of the House would prefer to see—the reality is that it may not always be taken up. Clearly, it will be taken up only if there is a need to do so. I say to members of the government: spare a thought for the hardship, suffering and trauma of the person who is saying, 'I need additional support.' Spare a thought for the children in that household because, quite frankly, their needs are much, much greater than what they might be asking for. Spare a thought also for the psychological effect on those people as they continue to live their lives. They are people at a critical time in their lives and need all the support they can possibly get. Sometimes 10 days of paid leave or, as the government is offering, five days of unpaid leave might be all they need. On other occasions it might be more. I make two other observations about the complexities of domestic violence. We know that one out of every three victims of domestic violence are not in the workforce. For them, this legislation provides no support whatsoever. Indeed, for them it's often even harder because they are isolated, in many cases, in their own homes. They don't go to work and interact with other women and other work colleagues to whom perhaps they can sometimes confide what is happening within their lives. So they remain even more captured than the others. I also note that, between 2012 and 2014, there were 126 intimate partner homicides in Australia and, of those, 32, or roughly a quarter, were of Indigenous people. I suspect that most of those Indigenous people were also unemployed. Clearly, we need to make a much greater effort towards assisting Indigenous communities with this very serious issue, and the statistics are there for all to see. As we also know, in most cases the statistics make it very clear that domestic violence seems to occur at even greater levels within lower socioeconomic communities. Clearly, one of the things we need to do as a nation is to ensure that we provide the level of assistance, whether it's through employment programs or even unemployment programs, to help get those people out of the poverty that they are in, because quite often it is the very situation that they find themselves in that leads to domestic violence. I want to take the opportunity in speaking on this bill to acknowledge two local women's groups in my area that have done some fantastic work with respect to supporting victims of domestic violence and, in particular, women and children. I refer to the Zonta Club of Para District Area and also the Tea Tree Gully VIEW Club. I commend them for their efforts over many years in providing assistance to women and children caught up in domestic violence situations. The women of the Zonta and VIEW clubs quietly, without any fanfare, have over the years engaged in several projects that I'm aware of that provide real assistance to victims of domestic violence, and I indeed thank them for their efforts to do so. In closing: of course our primary effort should always be in preventing domestic violence. I note that there are several good initiatives around the country, some at local level and some at national level, that are already underway, and I'm sure that they are making a difference, but I also believe that we could do a lot more. And we should be focusing on doing more because ultimately that would minimise the impact of this legislation or any other support measures that are required when a family has to go through a domestic violence situation. Domestic violence is a serious matter, and it shouldn't be ignored, because of the trauma it causes and the lives it ruins. I believe that there is opportunity for us as a nation to put in both support measures and preventative measures. I see this legislation as a step in the right direction because it does a bit of both. It both supports the person who finds themselves in that situation and simultaneously says to the perpetrator of violence, 'There is some support that will be provided to your partner, to your wife or whoever it may be, if you become violent with them.' That in turn, I hope, might act as a deterrent, at least in some cases, to the violence that would have otherwise been committed. For those reasons, as other members of this side have said, we will support the legislation, but of course we believe it could have gone further and should have gone further. 13:13 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I rise to speak on this important piece of legislation, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018. I suspect there's hardly anybody in this country who doesn't know someone—a family member, a friend, a colleague at work, someone within one of the groups in which they mix—who has been the subject of family and domestic violence. This is a blight upon our society. It is one which governments of both persuasions, people on both sides of this chamber and elsewhere in state and territory parliaments, have worked for a long time to try to address in a more successful manner, but the challenge remains with us in this place as elsewhere in the country, so I want to speak on this bill. I've also seen the impact of this. As some members will know, my wife and I worked for many years with an agency helping couples and families. You see the consequences even when talking to young couples approaching marriage, for example, where something like the experience of domestic violence in their parents' relationship has had an impact in an intergenerational way upon their own relationship. As we learn from social science research, these impacts are not confined merely to the people who are caught up in these situations; they are intergenerational and can extend even beyond the next generation into a third generation. So this remains an important subject for all of us in this place to address. As other speakers have noted, this bill will provide as a minimum standard five days unpaid leave for all employees covered by the Fair Work Act. It is an important step to take in relation to family and domestic violence. Since 2013 the government has committed over $300 million to address family and domestic violence. In 2015 the government committed $100 million through the Women's Safety Package, which provided crucial funding for the 1800RESPECT national telephone and online counselling information service to provide more support for men and women and also for local women's caseworkers to coordinate support for women escaping domestic violence, including housing, safety and budgeting services. In 2016 a further $100 million was committed under the third action plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. In previous incarnations, in the employment ministry and the social services ministry, I was pleased to work with colleagues at both the state and territory levels and elsewhere on the various action plans as part of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children and to work with advocates for addressing the blight of domestic violence—with people such as Natasha Stott Despoja. I note that work on the fourth action plan is now well underway. As part of this process the Minister for Women, Ms O'Dwyer, who is at the table at the moment, co-chaired in December this year the COAG National Summit on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children. Recent budget measures also add to this issue. There is $55 million for community legal centres, directed to frontline family law and family violence services; $10.7 million for family law courts to employ additional family consultants; $12.7 million for establishing the parenting management hearings, a new forum for resolving family law disputes between self-represented litigants; and $3.4 million for expanding the national pilot program for specialist domestic violence units to provide wraparound legal and other support services to women who are experiencing or are at risk of domestic and family violence. In addition to that, in this year's budget there were further measures announced, including $22 million over five years to address elder abuse in Australia; $14.2 million over four years for the Office of the eSafety Commissioner; $6.7 million to maintain funding for DV-alert to continue its domestic violence response training for community frontline workers; and an additional $11.5 million for the national sexual assault, domestic and family violence counselling service, 1800RESPECT, for the next two years. 1800RESPECT has provided vital support services for many people. Of course, that is why that additional funding was provided. In November, just last month, we had the first Women's Economic Security Statement, worth $109 million over four years. All these measures are important. If there were a simple answer to this problem then it would have been found by now. There is not, so we must continue our efforts. In conclusion I wish to say a couple of things. Like previous speakers, I'd like to acknowledge the work of local groups in my constituency who have worked with the victims of domestic violence in particular and groups that support women within the community. The Women's Friendship Group in Doncaster, for example, is an important agency. It's a mechanism by which women come together to support each other. It has done a very wonderful job. Then there is the important work of Doncare, the major welfare charity in my electorate. It has provided for the victims of domestic violence and families for many years now. I've been delighted to help them with funding through the Stronger Communities Program for a variety of services that go to help the victims of domestic violence within the area. Finally, I think we all have a responsibility in terms of the language we use. There seems to have been a coarsening of language within the community and within the polity in Australia. People get on social media, like Facebook and Twitter, and say all sorts of misogynistic things off the top of their head. We have a responsibility to stand up against that and call out people who are misogynistic in their comments online. We should not like or retweet those sorts of comments. We should call out people who have a history of making those sorts of comments. It's this sort of coarsening of the language which gives licence to other people within the community to say similar things, and if people use language of this nature then, unfortunately, that gives licence to some people to think that they can act that out within their own families. This is a regrettable trend which has occurred, and I believe all of us have a responsibility to call it out when we see it. 13:20 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank all members for their contribution in this very important debate on this very important bill. The Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 will enshrine five days unpaid leave in the National Employment Standards. It will for the first time extend a guaranteed entitlement to up to six million workers who do not currently have access to such leave. This is an historic and important step that is supported by the government's broader agenda to strengthen women's personal safety and economic security. The government is pleased to be delivering on its commitment as soon as possible to ensure that employees covered by the Fair Work Act will have access to a new safety net entitlement of five days unpaid leave to deal with the impact of family and domestic violence. I introduced the bill in the spring sitting, the first sitting period after the Fair Work Commission finalised the model award term in July 2018. I thank the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for its inquiry into this bill and those individuals and organisations that provided submissions and attended the public hearings to assist the committee in its deliberations. I'm pleased that the committee recommended that the bill be passed. The question of what workplace leave should be available to victims of family and domestic violence was considered in extensive detail by the Fair Work Commission. The consideration included whether leave should be paid or unpaid, how much leave was appropriate, who should have access to leave and the circumstances in which leave should be available. Between October of 2014 and July 2018 the Fair Work Commission considered 68 written submissions from 27 parties, received over 2,000 pages of documentation, heard evidence from 26 witnesses and held over 11 days of hearings. Submissions were made and interested parties were given an opportunity to provide input at every stage and step in the process. Unions, employers and community groups all actively engaged in the Fair Work Commission's process. The government respects the integrity of the fair and balanced process the Fair Work Commission undertook in making its decision. The Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee in its report into this bill acknowledged the extensive consideration of the issue by the Fair Work Commission and noted that it did not receive evidence which would challenge the basis of the Fair Work Commission's decision. In relation to paid leave the commission explicitly stated in its decision: … 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. …   …   … The ACTU has not provided a satisfactory explanation as to how it arrived at ten days and the evidence does not support a finding that ten days paid leave is necessary. The Fair Work Commission decided that five days unpaid leave represents a fair and relevant minimum safety net entitlement. This of course does not mean that employers cannot offer something above that minimum safety net, but this is the minimum that will apply to all. The bill will extend the decision of the Fair Work Commission to all employees covered by the Fair Work Act. It is the right step to take right now. The commission's decision applied to award-reliant employees. This bill will provide a universal safety net entitlement for all workers under the Fair Work Act, regardless of the basis of their employment or the size of their employer. Many workers covered by the Fair Work Act currently have no entitlement to family and domestic violence leave, as they are not award reliant. This new safety net entitlement will not prevent employers from providing other support to employees experiencing family and domestic violence. However, we must recognise that employers need to make business decisions that reflect their own situation. Enterprise agreements and workplace policies are the appropriate place for more generous entitlements to be provided where individual employers are able to do so. As the Australian Industry Group submitted to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill: Employers have different capacities to provide support to employees who are experiencing family and domestic violence. … Smaller employers often do not have written policies but they typically adopt a reasonable and compassionate approach when their employees suffer genuine hardships. The Bill implements an appropriate safety-net entitlement. I know some members have spoken about the need for people to experience family and domestic violence to be able to maintain their employment and not feel that they have no choice but to resign. By providing for family and domestic violence leave as a workplace right in the National Employment Standards, all workers covered by the Fair Work Act will be protected from adverse action for taking family and domestic violence leave. This includes actions such as dismissing someone or reducing their shifts. Under the government's bill, people who need to take leave to deal with the impact of family and domestic violence will be able to do so safe in the knowledge that their job is protected. We know that, sadly, victims of family and domestic violence are overwhelmingly women. This year, already, too many women have been killed violently at the hands of men, and one death is just too many. Addressing violence against women remains a key priority for our government, and we are taking comprehensive action. Our government has invested over $300 million to improve women's safety since 2015. In the 2018-19 budget, we announced $54.4 million in new funding for online safety initiatives and critical domestic violence services to ensure that women can be safe at home, online and at work. This included funding for DV-alert, a program to build capacity in frontline workers for whom managing family violence is not a core function of their role. It also included funding for 1800RESPECT, the flagship national service for domestic, family violence and sexual assault counselling, information and support. 1800RESPECT has proved to be a vital support for so many. I'm pleased that, in addition to this budget funding, on 27 November this year the government announced that 1800RESPECT will receive $10.9 million in additional funding to meet ongoing demand. The government has also previously committed $100 million to the Third Action Plan, a further step in the 12-year national plan to achieve a significant and sustained reduction of violence against women and children. One project under the Third Action Plan I would like to draw attention to is the development of a one-stop shop for online resources. The resources will provide holistic, best-practice guidance for employers and employees to help support victims of family and domestic violence. I also want to welcome the positive response to the latest ads, which were part of the award-winning Stop it at the Start campaign. In partnership with states and territories, we have committed $30 million to target the influencers of young people—such as parents, friends, teachers and coaches—to help bring about generational change in attitudes around violence against women. I was pleased to co-host the COAG National Summit on Reducing Violence Against Women and their Children on 2 and 3 October 2018 in Adelaide. I look forward to continuing to work with states, territories and the Australian community as we develop the Fourth Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. The government is also proud to be contributing $500,000 towards the Australian Human Rights Commission's inquiry into sexual harassment in the workplace, which is to be led by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins. This government understands that we can help women to build their financial security through practical measures. It is one of the key reasons why I delivered the first ever women's economic security statement, which focused on three key pillars: workforce participation, earning potential and, importantly, economic independence. These important measures support women's financial security to help them to be able to escape violent relationships. Our government's record on women's economic security is strong. Under our government, there are more women in work than ever before, with over 5.9 million women in work. Women's workforce participation is at record highs. We are on target to meet the G20 commitment to reduce the gap in women's workforce participation by 25 per cent to 9.1 percentage points by 2025. In October 2018 the participation gap was standing at 9.5 percentage points. Under our government we are also making good progress on closing the gender pay gap. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Henningham, Mr Herbert Paul, OAM 15 13:30 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I rise to pay tribute to Paul Henningham, OAM who died at his home in Springwood this week at the age of 98. Herbert Paul Henningham was born in 1921 and was raised in rural New South Wales. After military service in World War II he worked as a social worker, publisher, journalist and social historian. Rotary was one of his big loves. In 1955 he joined Rotary, first in Marrickville and then as a charter member of the Newtown club before moving to the Blue Mountains. I saw him most recently at the Lower Blue Mountains 50th anniversary. Paul was the district governor. He was a Paul Harris Fellow and the founding editor of Rotary Down Under. He was also the author of several biographies and histories, including the history of the first 75 years of Rotary in Australia. At his death he was still working on another project. I'm the proud owner of a copy of his book I, Jane Austen: A Re-creation in Rime Royal Based on the Letters of Jane Austen, Her Novels and the Comments of Her Biographers. Paul was a lovely, gentle soul. He was wise, thoughtful and engaged in the world. He wrote to me reluctantly to request a Saluting Their Service certificate. He said, 'It is with extreme reluctance, but at the insistence of the family, that I submit the enclosed for your consideration. As I tremble on the brink of advanced senility, another certificate is not what I most need for reassurance.' I was very pleased to present him with that in 2016. My thoughts are with Peggy and their family. Page Electorate: Martial Arts 15 13:31 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Martial arts requires a great deal of discipline, something that four young students in my community displayed recently. Krystal Boyce from The Rivers Secondary College was selected to represent Australia at the Shotokan karate world championships in the Czech Republic next year. Krystal credits her success to the support of her coaches, Sensei Michael O'Keefe, Sensei Mark Waller and Sensei Dean Marshall. Good luck, Krystal! I'd also like to acknowledge the achievements of Tynikah Hampson, Christopher Hampson and Imogen Crampton. The trio recently competed at the National All Styles Martial Arts Queensland state titles. Imogen competed in the 5th Kyu to black belt point sparring category, taking out the gold medal, making her the Queensland state champion. She also won two silver medals in the 15-17s open continuous sparring and the 16-17s 5th Kyu to black belt categories. Christopher Hampson competed in the 14-15 years 10th Kyu to 6th Kyu point sparring division, taking out the gold medal, and is, therefore, state champion. He also competed in the kata category, winning a bronze. Christopher's younger sister, Tynikah, also chimed in with success of her own, winning a bronze medal in the 12-13 years 10th Kyu to 6th Kyu point sparring division. I congratulate them all and wish them all the best of luck. Batman Electorate: Adult and Community Education 16 13:33 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman Today I bring the adult and community education, or ACE, sector to the attention of the House. ACE is a discreet fourth sector of education in Australia. It is not for profit and is community based. These diverse organisations include neighbourhood houses, community learning centres, community colleges and adult education institutions. In my electorate we are fortunate enough to have Preston Reservoir Adult Community Education, or PRACE, which has been delivering education pathways to the most disadvantaged and disenfranchised people, who look to ACE for a flexible environment not found elsewhere. This is because ACE providers have acknowledged expertise in working with disadvantaged cohorts, including people with disability, early school leavers, low-skilled and vulnerable workers, people from low socioeconomic backgrounds, Indigenous Australians, unemployed Australians and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. The ACE programs build community capacity. Through critical connections to other services ACE enhances social cohesion, promoting health and wellbeing. This is a sector that recognises and addresses the gaps in opportunity for those marginalised by circumstance. It is a vital sector that requires our support if we are serious about lifting people out of poverty and providing every Australian with the opportunity to be their best self. Education has been, was and always will be a key part of the Labor movement. I'm a firm advocate for every person having access to education pathways and employment. I congratulate ACE providers, with a special mention to PRACE. State Emergency Service 16 13:34 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Our State Emergency Service volunteers serve a cause greater than themselves to protect life and property in our country communities. There are 26 members in the Lithgow SES unit. They are an integral part of the Lithgow community and they are always there when we need them. Just last week members were out responding to calls due to the strong winds and rain in the district. I'd like to pay tribute to all of the Lithgow SES members today, including SES unit commander, Deirdre Cummins; SES deputy unit commander, Anthony Davis; Brett Thorpe; Caitlin Baines; Colin O'Brien; Daniel Parsons; Dario Tascini; David Veen; Emma Jeffery; Evonne Balcar; Felix Harris; Joshua Hutchinson; Joshua Hyland; Leslie Garland; Liam Parsons; Linda Garland; Luke Carter; Michael Williams; Reagan Scarrabelotti-Quin; Rhys O'Neill; Robert Davis; Robert Kitchener; Sally Lord; Shaun Murphy; Shona Johnson and Steven Saville. I'd like to thank all SES volunteers across New South Wales for the vital work that they do. Our communities owe them a great debt of gratitude and it's a privilege to be able to honour the Lithgow SES members in this House today. Macarthur Electorate: Schools 16 13:36 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I rise today to speak on a matter that is of the utmost importance to my constituents: education funding. If we on this side of the chamber are successful at the next federal election, we will make the biggest investment in public schools in history. We'll provide no less than an additional $14 billion to transform public schools right across the nation and to ensure that our students have the best possible start in life. I'm pleased to say that this fantastic policy will be of great benefit to my community of Macarthur, with Macarthur public schools set to receive over $23 million of this additional funding. That $23 million is a substantial funding boost, and I look forward to being re-elected as part of a Shorten Labor government that will deliver on this fantastic commitment. This isn't about blindly throwing money at an issue. This is about a real investment in needs based funding that will truly make a difference for the students, teachers and parents of Macarthur. We know the things that make a difference in our schools. For example, one more teacher to provide one-on-one attention for a child with learning difficulties makes a huge difference. That's why Labor will put this additional investment on the table. We want to ensure that all students from Macarthur, and, indeed, across the nation, have the opportunity to reach their full potential. Education is a silver bullet to a bright future. I would encourage all locals to jump onto the website www.fairgoforschools.com.au. Employment 17 13:37 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to bring to the attention of the House the wonderful work that a constituent of mine, Glen Davis from Taree, has been doing locally. He moved to Taree from Mudgee some years ago and set up a building business, which now employs six staff under an apprenticeship. He has been doing much more than running a building business. He realises the importance of vocational education and training and the importance of apprenticeships and skills training. In 2017-18 we had 39,800 people come to this wonderful country from overseas because we have a skills shortage. Glen created the Taree Careers and Trades Day, where he had 30 businesses joining with potential school leavers who are deciding on their career. He realises the value and the importance of skills training and local vocational training. Thirty different businesses turned up at the trades day. I'd like to compliment Glen on his initiative. We have so many skills that this nation needs, let alone what we need in the Lyne electorate in the Manning Valley. Beauticians, tilers, real estate agents, property managers, retailers, employment providers, electricians, builders—they all need skilled people. We realise that, even though we have 1.5 million people at the university, we have a shortage of apprenticeships. Climate Change 17 13:39 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Many of us grew up spending Sunday nights tuned to David Attenborough and learning about the world around us. David Attenborough has delivered another message to all of us. He has said overnight that the collapse of civilisation and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon, unless we get global warming under control. This is hot on the heels of the world's scientists telling us that to have any chance of getting global warming under control we need to shut down two-thirds of the world's coal-fired power stations by 2030. It's a point that primary and high school students get, and they took to the streets around the country last week to say that they want action from this government on global warming, because otherwise it is their future that is at stake. But it is a message this government seems absolutely unable to process. Not only is this government oblivious and making global warming worse; but they are now talking about putting public money that should be going to schools and hospitals into bankrolling coal-fired powers stations, so desperate are they to make global warming worse. They want to do it because they know a change of government is on the way. They want to funnel public money out the door over Christmas to bankroll new or existing coal-fired power stations. We've got a bill in this parliament to stop it. I thank Labor for their support for that bill. I thank my colleagues on the cross bench for this financially and environmentally responsible measure. If the government had any sense they would go back to the drawing board and stop putting money into coal-fired power stations. Moore Electorate: Multiculturalism 17 13:40 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I wish to thank members of the BAPS Indian community based in Wangara for supporting a range of charitable causes in our community. Yesterday, Mr Yogesh Shah and Mr Dylan Wadia from the Moore electorate joined representatives from communities across Australia for the Hindu Diwali and Annakut celebrations here in the Great Hall of our federal parliament. Many members and senators were privileged to take part in this magnificent multicultural event. I take this opportunity to formally commend members of the BAPS community for their community service. In particular, this month members are collecting cans of tinned food and donating them to the Salvation Army and the Spiers Centre, in Heathridge, for the purpose of making up Christmas hampers needed for the festive season. With two weeks to go, the group is on track to match last year's sterling effort of donating more than 3,000 cans of food. In addition, members of the community have been involved in donating blood and plasma products required for blood transfusions at the local Red Cross blood donor centre in Edgewater. On behalf of the Australian parliament, I commend the members of the BAPS community for their civic-mindedness and their contribution to a better society. Wentworth Electorate: Education 17 13:42 Dr PHELPS 008Z0 Wentworth Wentworth is a diverse community. We have mansions, apartments and social housing, CEOs and homeless people, high-, middle- and low-income earners and pensioners. We also have 15 private schools and only one public high school. This denies families a choice. A number of public high schools in the area were closed about 20 years ago because of short-term planning based on short-term trends. These sites have since been sold off to private interests. It has led to a crisis in public education in Wentworth. The only public high school, Rose Bay Secondary College, is already over-capacity and the feeder primary schools in Wentworth have record student numbers. There is zero capacity to cater for the increased demand that will result from the dozens of already approved residential developments due to be completed in coming years. This problem is due to get worse before it gets better and it needs to be addressed now. During the recent by-election campaign, I committed to doing everything I could to work with campaigners, councils and state and federal governments to secure a site and the necessary funding for a new public high school for the families of Wentworth. That is what I intend to do. I acknowledge the advocacy work of Licia Heath and CLOSEast on this. It is a very important issue. We need to work together to deliver for the future of Wentworth. Illicit Drugs 18 13:43 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning Next week, Mandurah celebrates the result of three years of hard work with the official opening of the Peel Youth Medical Service Health Hub. In 2015 I met with GP Down South to discuss the health challenges faced by young people in the Peel region. Like many, I was deeply concerned about the young lives being ruined by drug abuse. GP Down South had a plan for a youth health facility focused on prevention and early intervention. Unlike other models, the PYMS Health Hub would collocate mental and physical health services under one roof, ensuring young people could get the help they needed all in one location. The Canning Ice Action Group agreed to support PYMS as an effective means to tackle substance abuse. Together, our community lobbied for funding to make this vision a reality. In April 2016 I led a delegation of young people from the Peel region to meet with the Prime Minister to discuss the needs of our region. Our hard work paid off, with the federal government committing $2 million to the construction of the PYMS Health Hub. With the job now complete, PYMS will play a key role in combatting drugs in our community. But building the health hub is just one part of the Morrison government's plan. We've pulled almost 20 tonnes of drugs off Australian streets through Taskforce Blaze, and we're fighting to pass the Mandurah drug testing trial, which will invest in local rehab services and help young drug users get drug free and job ready. The Morrison government has done much to protect young people from the dangers of drug abuse, but it's only the beginning. We remain committed to the fight against drugs in Mandurah. Moreton Electorate: Corinda State High School 18 13:45 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I'm very proud that Corinda State High School in my electorate of Moreton has been accredited as the first carbon-neutral education institution in Queensland. It's not easy to get this accreditation. An organisation must measure emissions, reduce them where possible, offset remaining emissions and publicly report on their carbon neutrality. That's quite a commitment for a state education facility to undertake, let alone achieve. I applaud the school and, in particular, the leadership of the principal, Helen Jamieson. We talked together back in 1988 in Babinda up in Far North Queensland. She's a wonderful example to her students. Helen and her staff and students are taking action to address climate change, even when our country's leaders are not. The students at Corinda State High School understand that it is their future that is at risk. In their own way, they've taken matters into their own hands. I applaud their initiative, but of course we need those who have the power to make broader changes. Unless we get some real leadership on climate change now, today's schoolchildren will be looking at catastrophic scenarios by the time they're facing middle age. We expect the occupants of this parliament to lead by example, but the students of Corinda State High School and their staff and parents are turning that on its head. Corinda State High School students and teachers are setting the example for this parliament to follow. I hope all of those opposite who care about the future and anyone who has children will be doing the right thing. Have a look at Corinda State High School and what they're doing. I hope that you will encourage schools in your electorates to do the same thing and be carbon-neutral education institutions. Gateway Motorway 18 13:46 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie The Gateway Motorway upgrade to six lanes is almost complete, ahead of schedule and on budget. When I was a Liberal National candidate in 2012, we promised to pour $1 billion into the upgrade of the Gateway Motorway. Any motorist living on the north side of Brisbane would know how painful travelling along the Gateway Motorway is during peak hour. A 40-minute drive from Bracken Ridge, as the member for Brisbane knows, would often become an hour during peak times, and it regularly looked like a car park. Last week, when I was travelling home from parliament, I was really pleased to see that the six lanes were open, which was great. They're still doing a little bit of work here and there, but I've been advised by Transport and Main Roads that, by the end of this week, all three lanes each way will be open from Nudgee to the Deagon Deviation and that, early next year, the speed limit will be put back up to 100 kilometres an hour. What this billion-dollar upgrade from the Liberal-National government has done is that all that traffic that was banking up at Nudgee is now getting off at Boondall, Sandgate, the Deagon exit, the Brighton exit and the Bracken Ridge exit. There is also a dedicated lane to the Redcliffe Peninsula. That leads to traffic heading north to North Lakes and up to the Sunshine Coast. This is really good news, and we'll keep pushing for more infrastructure upgrades in the north side of Brisbane and Moreton Bay. Climate Change 19 13:48 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor One of the proudest days for me as a member of the federal parliament and the Labor team was the day when we recommitted our efforts towards reduction of global warming. This side of the House is serious. We are not climate change denialists on this side of the House, and that is reflected in my electorate of Lalor. When I talk to young people in my electorate and ask them what they think the country's priorities are, global warming is right up there at No. 1. Young people across my electorate care about this, and they care about it because they hear their parents talking about it. Those opposite are really in danger of becoming yesterday's men—and, yes, I meant men. They are really in danger of completely losing touch with the Australian electorate when it comes to this issue. They should all commit, with Labor, to the National Energy Guarantee that they designed. It is their policy. They should go back to their party room today and not talk about leadership for a change but perhaps have a conversation about the peril the planet's in and how young people care about this issue. In fact, they care enough to go out on the streets and strike. As a former teacher, I fully support those young people expressing their opinion in the streets of our nation. Benham, Mrs Julia Arabella 19 13:49 Mr JOYCE E5D New England The member for Upper Hunter, Michael Johnsen, has brought to my attention the passing of the late Julia Arabella Benham on 12 October 2018. She was in her 110th year; she was 109 years old. The community of Quirindi and surrounding districts gathered at St Albans Anglican Church, Quirindi, on 23 October to celebrate this wonderful woman's life. She was a committed Christian and she was committed to the CWA and to the Red Cross, and she had a long and involved life in rural Australia. She had lived at Exton, Willow Tree, Kelverton, Big Jacks Creek and Pleasant Side, and in 1995 she moved to Quirindi. She is also the great aunt of Jennifer Ingall of Tamworth's ABC, so obviously a range of people owe their life to her living hers. She held various positions with the CWA over the 59 years that she lived in Willow Tree. It is people such as Mrs Julia Arabella Benham who have made this nation what it is today. Mrs Benham was the sort of person who served her nation and didn't ask for reward. She was absolutely satisfied that to be a good community member is not an onerous task; it's absolutely a responsibility. She will be greatly missed by all who knew and loved her. I wish her all the best, and may she rest in peace. The SPEAKER 00APG I will now suspend the sitting so that we can have a photograph taken. Sitting suspended from 13:52 to 13:56 The SPEAKER 00APG We will resume the sitting. We've still got time for a couple of 90-second statements. Homelessness 19 13:56 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman It's a tough life being Queensland housing minister Mick de Brenni—all that finger pointing you've got to do! I found eight people living in permanent tenting in my city. Every Australian deserves to have a roof over their head, and every state housing department should be providing it. Listen to the Labor explanation for homelessness: they call upon me and the Prime Minister to make state public housing more affordable. Mick de Brenni blamed the Commonwealth for unfair tax breaks, accused the Commonwealth of having no plan for Queensland housing and said the cuts to Aboriginal housing had a flow-on impact to inner-city Brisbane. Mick de Brenni, the housing minister in Queensland, cancelled the $800 million Logan renewal initiative—2½ thousand homes for people like Kerrin that I met with. Young men in Queensland wait seven years for a roof over their heads—they live in a tent and have their cat confiscated—and the state bureaucrats can't even manage a referral to a state-federal funded housing provider like Micah. There is no referral for Kerrin, no case officer at state housing, and Mick de Brenni, so busy over cappuccinos, is pointing the finger at Canberra. Homelessness 19 13:58 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam Every Australian deserves a roof over their head, but no Australian deserves the member for Bowman as their local representative! With all the problems going on in their party room over the last week, with all the problems on display, you'd have thought they'd have a lot more to do when they came into this place than complain about what is happening in another tier of government. The people of Queensland have already voted on their state representative. The message for the member for Bowman and all of those other regional Queensland representatives is: look to your own backyard. You've got plenty of problems with broadband and the National Broadband Network. You've got plenty of problems with housing affordability but not a policy to bless yourselves with. You've got plenty of problems when it comes to the delivery of healthcare services but not a policy or an initiative to bless yourselves with. So instead of coming into this place, day after day, and puffing yourselves up and blaming another tier of government for your own electoral failures and your own policy failures, look to your own backyard and your own party rooms—because you've got much bigger problems to deal with on your side than trying to fix the problems of another tier of government. Dividend Imputation 20 13:59 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I would like to draw the House's attention to Labor's proposed retirement tax, a policy that will see them steal the franking credits of 1.4 million older Australians, Australians who have built this country and who have saved for their retirement and have invested in Australian companies—and theft it is. Theft it is. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hughes will resume his seat. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 20 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook On indulgence, I just continue to advise the House that the Minister for Home Affairs, who was absent from the House last week, is also absent from the House this week and will be represented by the Attorney-General. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE National Energy Guarantee 20 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the current Prime Minister agree with the recently retired former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who said today about the National Energy Guarantee, 'It was a vital piece of economic policy that had strong support—and none stronger, I might say, than that of the current Prime Minister and the current Treasurer'? 14:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The proposal that was considered by the government that the former Prime Minister had brought to cabinet and had been considered by that government had a 26 per cent emissions reduction target. What the Labor Party is proposing is to legislate, to make law, a 45 per cent emissions reduction target. That is what the Labor Party is proposing, and, no, on this side of the House, the Liberal and Nationals parties, we do not support a 45 per cent emissions reduction target, which is part of the Labor Party's plan. Now, they might like to dress up their 45 per cent emissions reduction target as a national energy guarantee, but it is a 45 per cent emissions reduction target which is a thumping big electricity tax. It will force up people's electricity prices, whether you are a pensioner or you're a householder raising kids or you're a small or family business. Labor's policies will mean that Australians will pay more. They will pay more in taxes. They'll pay more for their electricity. They'll pay more for their private health insurance. They will pay more under what Labor is proposing because Labor think the only way to run a government is to make everything cost more, to put your taxes up. And do you know why they do that? It is because they don't know how to run a strong economy. They don't know how to manage a budget. That is their history every time they get into government, and the people of Australia know it. They know that the Leader of the Labor Party and all of the Labor Party members cannot manage money. They cannot manage a budget, and that's why they can't be trusted in government to run a budget—because, if you can't run a budget and you can't run an economy, you can't guarantee essential services. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW Yes, a point of order on direct relevance, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has now spent, I think, two minutes talking about the Labor Party. The question asks him about his previous support for the National Energy Guarantee. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister was certainly straying from the question when he broadened out into the economy, but, with respect to the bulk of his answer prior to that, where he was talking about the particular policy that was the subject of the question, I believe he is in order. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. It remains the case that our government are supporting the reliability guarantee to ensure that we have reliable power contracted into the future. That's our policy. But I'll tell you what our policy has delivered. Our policy means that EnergyAustralia, AGL, Origin Energy, Red and Lumo have heeded our calls to put customers first and lower power prices on 1 January 2019. AGL will discount bills by 10 per cent for customers on standing offers. EnergyAustralia will discount bills by 15 per cent for concession customers. Origin Energy will provide a 10 per cent discount off usage for concession card holders, and Red and Lumo will give an automatic 10 per cent discount for customers on standing offers. Our policies to reduce electricity prices are working. Labor's policy will put electricity prices up. Economy 21 14:04 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the government's actions to build a stronger economy are delivering better education and health services for Australians without raising taxes? 14:05 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Forde for his question. Under our government, Australia has a stronger economy. Under our government and the continuation of our government, the economy will continue to be stronger. Under the Labor Party's policies and their higher taxes, the Australian economy will be weaker; it won't be stronger. There's a very clear choice at the next election: a stronger economy with lower taxes under the Liberal and National parties or a weaker economy with higher taxes under the Labor Party—a very clear contrast that is on offer to the Australian people at the next election. We are delivering a stronger economy, a stronger economy which means, in April of next year, our government will hand down the first surplus budget in more than a decade—a surplus budget which means, because of a stronger economy, that we can guarantee and deliver the essential services that Australians rely on. What are some of those services? Federal funding for public hospitals under our government has increased from $13.3 billion in 2012-13, and it will increase to $23.4 billion in 2020-21. That is a 76 per cent increase in funding for hospitals that is being delivered because of the strong economy that is being run and the strong budget management that is being run by our government. In the member for Forde's home state of Queensland, our hospital funding has increased by 98 per cent over the same period. So the Labor Party will talk about what is happening with hospital funding—under our government, hospital funding has been increasing year on year and year on year, and in the member's electorate of Forde our government has delivered the Metro South Hospital and Health Service, a 65 per cent or $265 million funding boost. Since coming to government we've also listed over a thousand medicines—in fact, 1,900 medicines—worth close to $10 billion on the PBS, and in September we announced to more than 400,000 Australians that they will be able to access life-saving scans through a $175 million investment in 30 new Medicare eligible MRI licences. Our government is running a strong economy. Our government is returning the budget to surplus, and in April of next year we will deliver the first surplus budget in more than a decade. When you run the economy well, when you run the budget well, you can invest in hospitals, you can invest in affordable medicines and you can invest in eligible MRI licences. You can deliver on the essential services Australians rely on. You can't do it without a stronger economy. Under the Liberal and National parties the economy will be stronger and taxes will be lower, and under the Labor Party the economy will be weaker, putting at threat essential services, and taxes will be higher. (Time expired) Energy 21 14:08 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the current Prime Minister agree with the previous Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who said today about the National Energy Guarantee: There was a minority of Coalition MPs who effectively torpedoed what was fundamentally a very good technology agnostic policy, which united climate and energy policy, and would enable us to bring down prices and keep the lights on. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Treasurer is warned. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:09 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The policy that was being pursued by the government did not include a 45 per cent emissions reduction target. As a result, when we pursued this policy, it was not with the policy being suggested by the Labor Party. The Labor Party refuses to be honest with the Australian people that a 45 per cent emissions reduction target—which is the centrepiece of their national energy guarantee—will wipe out smelting industries, will wipe out steel industries, will wipe out the agricultural sector industries. Which of these industries will go first under the Labor Party with their economy-wrecking, 45 per cent emissions reduction target? The Business Council of Australia made it pretty clear. They said an emissions target of 26 per cent— An opposition member interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L They're their words. Would you like to rephrase it for them? They said an emissions reduction target of 26 per cent is appropriate and achievable. That's what the Business Council has said, and that's what we're doing and that's what we're committed to. They said a 45 per cent emissions reduction target is 'an economy-wrecking target'. That is what the Labor Party are proposing to do if they are elected. Make no mistake, if the Labor Party are elected in this country, they propose to make dramatic and widescale changes to the economy of Australia. Mr Dreyfus HWG What you are proposing? Coal. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L They are looking to change it all when it comes to the economic management of this country. That is exactly what they did back in 2007. In 2007 they pretended to be fiscal conservatives, and we all know that that was a big fat lie. They sought to hoodwink the Australian people back in 2007. Following the election of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government at that time they pursued reckless economic policies, which drove the budget into deficit and drove the economy to its brink. For the last five years we have been cleaning up Labor's economic wreckage. Next April we will bring that budget back into surplus for the first time in more than a decade, because of sensible, rational economic policies. The Labor Party want to put up taxes. They want to put more than $200 billion of high taxes on the Australian economy. That will throw a wet blanket on jobs and it will drive up the cost of living for Australians, whether they are pensioners or mums and dads paying school fees or just trying to get ahead. The Labor Party are proposing radical changes to the economic management of this country. That spells a weaker economy and higher taxes under the Labor Party. Economy 22 14:12 Mr GEE 261393 Calare My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the government's actions to build a stronger economy, without increasing taxes, are delivering the essential services regional Australia needs? What impact would an alternative approach to economic management have on electorates like Calare? 14:12 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Calare for his question. On 2 April next year the Treasurer is going to stand on this spot and deliver a surplus budget—the first surplus budget for more than a decade. Labor has not produced such a budget for more than 30 years. That is a disgrace, and everybody knows it. Next year we are going to, without raising taxes, deliver a surplus budget and deliver the essential services that Australians rely on, expect and deserve. That is certainly beneficial for the people who live in Calare and those who live in regional Australia. People who live in many regional areas of Australia are doing it tough at the moment. They have the effects of the drought. They are beset by the drought. We are putting on the table $1 million each for the 81 local government areas with drought stricken communities. That's going to bring forward works to create local jobs and keep money flowing around those communities. I know that councils in the member for Calare's electorate, including Blayney, Mid-Western Regional, Cabonne, Oberon and Dubbo Regional, are preparing applications at the moment as our investment gets to work in other communities across the nation—certainly in those drought affected communities in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria and lately in South Australia—to build the infrastructure they now need and to help keep money flowing in the towns. We've found that when you have a drought people leave town to look for employment. We want to keep employment opportunities in those council areas. Projects, like doing up the community hall in Brewarrina, are so important. It's going to get air conditioning and new audiovisual equipment. It's in the Parkes electorate. It's only a little community. We're providing that sort of support. The Brewarrina hall is used by the PCYC for gymnastics, concerts and movie screenings as well as gatherings, such as funeral wakes. We are working with council to install air-conditioning and to make sure local contractors, local people, are getting part of that work. We are also investing in projects such as the standpipe upgrades at Parkes. Parkes Shire Council is providing domestic and stock water free of charge for rural residents, who make up nearly a third of the shire's population, from council standpipes across the shire. It is something we are helping them to deliver. We are partnering with Quilpie Shire Council. I know the Prime Minister is well versed about Quilpie. He has been there. On his first day on the job as Prime Minister he went there. He listened to the people. We have responded. We have responded with that million dollars going throughout those 81 local government areas. At Quilpie they are going to help properties build wild dog exclusion fencing to lift lambing rates from as low as 17 per cent to upwards of 80 per cent. You can do that when you have a strong economy. What those opposite will deliver if they ever get back into government is a poorer economy. Energy 23 14:15 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the current Prime Minister agree with the recently retired former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who said today: There's never been a national energy policy that has had more universal support than the NEG. Why won't the Prime Minister implement the National Energy Guarantee with his own government's emissions targets? 14:16 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'm asked about comments of the former Prime Minister in relation to the National Energy Guarantee. The Leader of the Opposition may not be aware, but the former Prime Minister has just tweeted: I have not endorsed "Labor's energy policy". They have … not demonstrated that their 45% emissions reduction target will not push up prices. That's what the former Prime Minister said, and he is absolutely right. Labor have not and cannot demonstrate that their reckless 45 per cent, 'economy-wrecking'—as the Business Council have said—emissions reduction target of 45 per cent will not increase power prices, because, of course, it will increase power prices. Our target of 26 per cent has been clear for years. It is unchanged. The whole purpose of the design of the original National Energy Guarantee— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Shorten 00ATG On direct relevance: I asked the Prime Minister about former Prime Minister Turnbull's comments on the National Energy Guarantee, and then I asked him: why won't the Prime Minister implement the National Energy Guarantee with his own emissions targets? The Prime Minister has studiously avoided all questions dealing with Prime Minister Turnbull's comments on the NEG. It's a very straightforward question on emissions targets. Mr Pyne 9V5 Glass jaw! Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Did the Leader of the House say sorry? There's a first time for everything, there really is. I have to get that into Hansard. On the point of order: the Leader of the Opposition makes a reasonable point that the question was quite specific, but, as the Prime Minister said in the early part of his answer, it did ask about comments of the former Prime Minister, and he is relating his remarks to comments of the former Prime Minister, but I'm listening very carefully. Mr MORRISON E3L I'm referring to comments that the former Prime Minister was making about the National Energy Guarantee. He has made it very clear that the mechanism would be similar, but the key difference is that a 45 per cent emissions reduction target would push up electricity prices. This is something the Leader of the Labor Party does not want to have a discussion about. We are implementing and meeting our emissions reduction targets through the Renewable Energy Target, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, our energy efficiency measures and the Emissions Reduction Fund. Per capita emissions are now at their lowest level in 28 years, so our government is implementing and meeting our targets. We have smashed Kyoto 1. We are going to smash Kyoto 2. The findings of the recent IPCC report said very clearly that we are meeting our emissions reduction target. We will meet our 2030 target. We will meet this without putting up electricity prices. Those opposite, the Labor Party, have got a plan, but it is a plan to increase electricity prices for every single household in this country. They've got form. When they were last in government they introduced the carbon tax, and it put up electricity prices—the carbon tax that they promised they wouldn't introduce but introduced anyway, in defiance and in arrogance, driven by ideology. And it hurt every single family. We're not going to do that. We are going to meet our emissions reduction target, and we are going to balance that with sensible energy policies that get electricity prices down. The Australian people have a choice: higher electricity prices under Labor or lower electricity prices under the Liberal and National parties. Infrastructure: Roads 23 14:20 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. There have been three tragic deaths on roads in Strathalbyn, in Mayo, in the last fortnight. South Australia has nearly 12 per cent of Australia's local roads and seven per cent of the nation's population but receives just 5.5 per cent of federal local road funding. To remedy this imbalance, South Australia received supplementary road funding, but this was cut by the Abbott government in 2014. Centre Alliance successfully negotiated with the Turnbull government to reinstate $40 million of supplementary road funding over two years, but this will end in June 2019. Deputy Prime Minister, will you commit to extend South Australia's supplementary road funding beyond June 2019 so that we can have an equitable share of federal road funding? 14:21 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Mayo for her question. We'll be pleased to consider all these things when we produce a surplus budget, because that's what surplus budgets enable you to do: to provide more of the roads infrastructure, more of the infrastructure that Australians need, want, expect and deserve. To the member for Mayo: any death on a road is a tragic death, and we work towards zero—and I know that is the goal of all of us; I know it is the shadow minister's objective, as we have stood together at many forums to work towards a zero road toll—and put in place actions and measures to do just that. We understand the importance of investing in infrastructure better than most. The Liberals and Nationals—that's what we do. We understand the importance of getting people home sooner and safer, whether it's in South Australia, in the member's electorate, or wherever it is across this great nation. We have committed $5.2 billion to land transport infrastructure in the member's state since coming to office in 2013. In the most recent budget alone, we've committed an additional $1.76 billion for new infrastructure projects across South Australia, including but not limited to $1.2 billion for future stages of the north-south corridor. Just recently I was there with the minister, Stephan Knoll, and the premier, looking at that vital piece of infrastructure. There is $177 million for the north-south corridor, the Regency Road to Pym Street, and $220 million— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Mayo on a point of order. Ms Sharkie 265980 Yes, on direct relevance. I was asking about supplementary road funding. It's a particular bucket of money. The SPEAKER 00APG As I heard the minister in his opening remarks, I think he answered that directly with respect to consideration in the upcoming budget, and he's now speaking on the subject of roads. So, the Deputy Prime Minister is completely in order. Mr Shorten 00ATG You don't have to go for the full three minutes! Mr McCORMACK 219646 The opposition leader says that I don't have to go for the full three minutes. But when you've got such a good story to tell about infrastructure, you can—and you should—go for the full three minutes. I should be asking for an extension of time, because it wouldn't be long enough to go through the full suite of measures that we're doing for South Australia and that we're doing for infrastructure across Australia—$75 billion, a record amount that we're spending on infrastructure to get Australians home sooner and safer. As far as the supplementary road funding is concerned, all these commitments have been complemented by $40 million in that road funding to further assist South Australian councils to upgrade and maintain local roads. This commitment in the 2017-18 budget follows strong advocacy, I have to say, from South Australian MPs, including the member for Barker, the member for Boothby and the member for Grey. They are strong campaigners for more road funding. They are committed to making sure that we do everything we can to get Australians home sooner and safer. But I have to say, there's a new breath of fresh air in South Australia, and it is the new government. Since they've taken over from Jay Weatherill, you can see the new signs of positivity in South Australians. You can see that the economy of South Australia has got a whole lot better under the Marshall government than it ever did under the Weatherill government. Economy 24 14:24 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government's actions to build a stronger economy will bring the budget back into surplus next year without increasing taxes? How would a different approach to economic management hurt families, including in my electorate of Tangney? 14:25 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Tangney for his question. He and we on this side of the House know that next year we'll be delivering the first budget surplus in over a decade, and we'll be doing that without increasing taxes. That is good news for the 15,000-plus small businesses in the member for Tangney's electorate and the many, many families in his electorate. The benefit of a strong, growing economy is that you can provide the record health and education spending that this side of the House is providing to the Australian people; that you can provide the record $75 billion in infrastructure funding; that you can spend more on defence and, indeed, commissioning those naval vessels that the Labor Party never commissioned during six years in government; and that you can fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme and provide the necessary welfare support for those who need it most. That is our approach: grow the economy and create more than a million new jobs. On the other side of the House, they have one plan for the Australian people. That is to increase taxes by $200 billion—higher taxes on your business, higher taxes on your income, higher taxes on your electricity bill, higher taxes on retirees and their savings, and higher taxes on your property. Let me tell you the impact of Labor's big, pernicious new property tax. According to Master Builders Australia, you will lose 32,000 jobs across the economy, 42,000 fewer dwellings will be built, and it will be an $11.8 billion hit to the Australian economy. Indeed, our AAA credit rating will be put in jeopardy by Labor's new big-taxing policy. Anybody who owns their own home under Labor's policy will see their home worth less, and anybody who rents their home under Labor's policy will end up paying more. The Housing Industry Association said an increase in the capital gains tax will lead to an increase to the cost of renting. Adept Economics said removing negative gearing as we know it would see rents increase. Just yesterday, CoreLogic said Labor's negative gearing policy would diminish investment demand across the resale market and that capital gains tax changes would likely provide a disincentive to investment. Every day there's a new piece of evidence that shows that Labor's policy is the wrong way to go. The Labor Party have one plan for 25 million Australians: higher taxes across the board. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 25 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:28 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House that joining us in the gallery this afternoon is the Hon. Peter Lindsay, former member for Herbert. On behalf of the House, a welcome back to you. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 25 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 25 14:28 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the recently retired former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who said today, 'At the moment, the cost of intermittent renewable generation is coming down dramatically with improvements in technology, as indeed is the cost of battery storage, so it's hardly surprising that new coal-fired generation simply cannot compete'? 14:29 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook What I do know is that there's some $15 billion of investment going into electricity generation and power generation in this country, including record amounts of investment that are going into renewable energy technologies, and I think that's a good thing. I think that's a very good thing. We have a 26 per cent emissions reduction target which sets out very clearly our plan and our policy, backed in by initiatives which mean that we have the lowest rate of emissions per capita in 28 years. So we're meeting our emissions reduction target. We're actually putting in place the policies—which is already getting results—of the big energy companies, reducing their electricity prices particularly for the most vulnerable customers, and we will continue to support policies that achieve those outcomes. We are doing that through a number of measures which, first of all, ensure a safety net, which is a default price to stop price gouging. We want the price gouging from the big electricity companies to stop. We are putting measure in place, recommended by the ACCC, to achieve just that. We will be introducing, as the energy minister and the Treasurer have outlined, our legislation to make available to the government a big stick to deal with the big energy companies. Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L I hear them mock and jeer every time we mention the fact that we are prepared to actually take on the big energy companies. Mock all you like, jeer and sneer and all the rest of it, but understand this: every time you say this, you are thumbing your nose at the Australian customers of energy in this country. Mr Hart interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bass! Mr Hart interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bass is warned! Mr MORRISON E3L You are saying that the Labor Party are choosing the big energy companies over the energy customers—households, mums, dads, pensioners—of this country. We're not afraid to say we will take a big stick to the energy companies. We're not afraid to say we will put this legislation in the parliament. We're not afraid to say we will put these powers in place to even up the score for electricity customers. What I do know is that the Labor Party will continue to oppose this legislation. They do not want the powers introduced into this parliament that will enable us to even up the score for customers. As a result, they will run away with the energy companies and coalesce with them and cuddle up to them. But I can tell you that our government won't. When we have met with the electricity companies we've had one simple message: drop your prices; bring them down. That's what the Australian people want. That's what their customers want. As their profits have increased, their prices have increased for their customers. We don't think that's fair, and we think it should change. We're going to introduce legislation into this parliament which puts pressure on the energy companies to do the right thing by their customers. The Labor Party are going to oppose it. They should be ashamed of themselves. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 26 14:32 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley My question is for the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House how the government's actions to build a stronger economy enable us to subsidise new treatments for Australian patients such as those living with spinal muscular atrophy—like Ally Clarke in my electorate—or melanoma without raising taxes? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to the supply of treatments recommended by the medical experts? 14:32 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I thank the member for Dunkley for his question. In fact, the Prime Minister and I had the pleasure of meeting with Ally Clarke, 10 years old, and her mother, Georgia Clarke, at Frankston a little while ago. After being notified that they would be able to access Spinraza, what Ally's mother, Georgia, said about this beautiful brave little girl who has spinal muscular atrophy was: 'We've basically been given our daughter's life back and it's amazing. It's the best feeling in the world.' I'm delighted to be able to update the House that recently, following the treatments—the infusions which this House authorised and supported through the budget because of a strong economy—Georgia advised Chris: 'Ally has experienced huge increases in independence. She has more endurance and increased participation in school. It has contributed to her nutrition, enabling her to increase her appetite and eat better, increasing her strength, and keep up with her peers.' That's why we do what we do. That's why we make the changes to the economy—so we can pay for these medicines. On Friday, I was fortunate to meet another group of Australians who are benefitting from the medicines that the government is bringing to the people following the recommendations of the medical experts. I met a young landscape gardener, Ben Kearon. Ben has had a real challenge. He was diagnosed with stage 4 melanoma. The prognosis was very, very grim. He was put on a trial for Opdivo and Yervoy—a combination of immunotherapies—breakthrough medicines. What he told us on Friday was that earlier this year he had been declared free of tumours. That medicine, which also helped Jarryd Roughead in winning his battle, is now on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It would otherwise cost $100,000 a year. Eight hundred patients are benefitting from that. That is what we are working towards as a government. That is what we seek to deliver. You can only do these things with a strong economy. We know that if you don't have a strong economy you can't pay for medicines. That's why it was said by 60 different groups, when the previous government stopped listing medicines, in a petition, 'Affordable medicines and vaccines that save and prolong lives are being denied to some of the most vulnerable, chronically ill Australians.' That is why groups such as Cystic Fibrosis Australia, Diabetes Australia, Heart Support Australia and the Brain Tumour Alliance all sent a message to the previous government that what they did, because they broke the economy and they busted the budget, was completely unacceptable. It will never happen under us, because we don't believe in what they did. It will never happen, because we believe in and will deliver a strong economy. Energy 26 14:35 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Malcolm Turnbull said today about the National Energy Guarantee: It has been abandoned by the federal government, I regret that, naturally, as does just about everyone in the federal government. Does the Prime Minister also regret abandoning his own National Energy Guarantee, which he promised would bring down power prices? 14:36 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Our government is committed to bringing power prices down. Do you know what? The Australian people are interested in one thing: they're interested in electricity prices being more affordable for them and their families, and they want us to achieve that. The core components of the National Energy Guarantee, as was designed by our government—there were two parts to it— Mr Watts 193430 You said the NEG would take prices down. You goose! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gellibrand will leave under 94(a). Mr MORRISON E3L There was ensuring that there was an emissions reduction target and there was ensuring that there was a reliability guarantee to increase the amount of contracting of reliable power supply in our electricity markets. That's the componentry of what that mechanism of the National Energy Guarantee was designed to achieve. This hasn't changed in terms of where we stand. A 26 per cent emissions reduction target remains the government's policy. A reliability guarantee to ensure the increased contracting of reliable power supply in the market remains our policy. The Minister for Energy, the minister for getting energy prices down, has been out there ensuring and pursuing the passage of that through the states and territories, something I recall the leader of the Labor Party actually opposing at the time when we were seeking to pursue that through the states and territories. We remain committed to our emissions reduction target. We remain committed to ensuring that there is more reliable power supply. These are the results, together with ensuring that we don't let the big electricity companies off the hook. Already, as a result of the pressure that we have applied, around 500,000 Australian household consumers are getting a better deal as a direct result of the fact that we're prepared to stand up to those companies, to introduce legislation that provides for divestment powers—similar to what is available in the United States and in the United Kingdom—and to ensure that we step up onto these issues. The Labor Party is not. That's why electricity prices will rise under the Labor Party. They're not prepared to take on the big electricity companies. They will put in place a 45 per cent emissions reduction target, described by the Business Council of Australia as an 'economy-wrecking target', and as a result they will see prices higher under Labor and they will see the economy weaker under Labor. We will continue to pursue sensible policies that get electricity prices down. The Labor Party are pursuing reckless targets when it comes to emissions reduction and they are pursuing soft and weak policies when it comes to taking on the big electricity companies. Education 27 14:39 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister update the House on how the government's actions to build a stronger economy have delivered record school funding for Australian students, parents and teachers without increasing taxes? Is the minister aware of the consequences of following an alternative approach? 14:39 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I'd like to thank the member for O'Connor for his question. I've got some very good news for the schools in his electorate—for the state schools, for the Catholic schools and for the independent schools. Record funding is going to flow to those schools. I'm pleased to inform the House that yesterday we signed the National School Reform Agreement with Western Australia. That will mean that record education funding will flow to Western Australia. It will flow to their state schools, will flow to their Catholic schools and will flow to their independent schools. As the House knows, across Australia last year we delivered $17.5 billion for Australian schools. This year we will provide $18.7 billion. Next year it will be $19.9 billion, and the year after it will be $21.4 billion—increase, upon increase, upon increase. When it comes to Western Australia, the Morrison government is providing $32.3 billion in recurrent funding to schools in Western Australia from 2018-29. This means an average increase of 4.7 per cent per student. For state schools it will be an increase of 6.4 per cent per student. What did the Western Australian education minister have to say about this? It's very important. Western Australian schools will see a record total of $30 billion flow into their state education system over the next six years. But, importantly, it's not just about record funding. It's also about what that record funding will lead to when it comes to outcomes and what it delivers. That is what's important as well. This is what the Western Australian education minister said: The State Government is committed to working with the Federal Government to implement the Gonski reforms, and this positive result reinforces our support for the new model. The reason we're able to provide this record funding is that we have a strong economy. That is the fundamental thing which underpins everything we do. Those opposite will put that under threat. It's important, because it is the parents of those kids who are going to school and it is the grandparents of those kids who are going to school who will have to pay for the Labor costs. They will have to pay for what Labor will deliver for school funding in Australia. They will stifle and strangle the Australian economy, putting pressure on those parents and on the future prospects of those students. Here, we believe in a strong economy, which leads to better education results. Those opposite want to put all that in jeopardy. (Time expired) Climate Change 27 14:42 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister always choose the worst and weakest policy option on climate change? Is it because, as Malcolm Turnbull has said, there is a significant percentage of his government that does not believe climate change is real? Is this why Malcolm Turnbull is no longer Prime Minister? 14:43 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The weakest and worst option for the Australian economy is the Australian Labor Party. That is the weakest and worst option. I can advise the House that that is based on their form, when they have been in government—'Captain Risky' over there, when it comes to the Australian economy. That is the risk that the Labor Party poses to our economy and all of what we're able to achieve, in terms of funding the essential services that Australians rely on. I notice the hubris, which I'm hearing from the member for Eden-Monaro. He's out there. He's all cocky. He's walking around his electorate. He thinks it's all over, bar the shouting. But I can assure the member for Eden-Monaro: you are in for a very big fight, because the Australian people do not want $200 billion of higher taxes on them in the mortgage belt of Queanbeyan or down the south coast of New South Wales. You're going to rip thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars out of the pockets of the retirees who are all throughout your electorate. The member for Eden-Monaro is a risk to his own constituents when it comes to the taxes that he seeks to impose on them. I can assure the Labor Party members opposite that on this side of the House we are going to fight for a stronger economy, we are going to fight for lower taxes, we are going to fight for small and family businesses, we are going to fight for mums and dads and we are going to fight for those Australians who haven't got the time to go around and get on Twitter and wear T-shirts and turn up at protests. We are going to fight for the Australians who are out there putting their kids through school, running their businesses, getting their kids educated, ensuring that they are supporting their communities, and running their local sporting organisations. That's who we are fighting for. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Batman will resume her seat. The member for Robertson. Energy 28 14:45 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Energy. Will the minister update the House on how the government's actions to build a stronger economy are bringing down power prices without increasing taxes? How would a different approach drive up prices, including in my electorate of Robertson? 14:46 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She knows that this government has a balanced and sensible policy for reliable and affordable electricity, including in the member for Robertson's electorate. When I was recently in Gosford in her electorate, we met with Gary, who has a smash repair business. He told me he'd been doing everything he could to get electricity prices down, but he needed to get them down further. He told me that if he could do that he could employ more apprentices and pay them more. We're changing that—we're changing that so that Gary can employ more young Australians, like the 100,000 young Australians who have been employed in recent years under this government. This government has already delivered on lower power prices. Thanks to pressure from our government, the big energy companies have been forced to provide a better deal to their customers. From 1 January, standing-offer customers will get a better deal from AGL, Energy Australia, Origin, Alinta, Red Energy, Lumo Energy and many others. They have heard the government's calls and we're getting discounts of up to 15 per cent on standing offers, especially to those customers, those Australians, who need it most. As we said today, this week we will introduce our big-stick legislation. Those opposite opposed this legislation before they had even seen it—legislation that will hold the big energy companies to account. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TAYLOR 231027 Our legislation will crack down— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will pause for a second. Members on my left will cease interjecting. The member for McEwen is warned. The Leader of the House! The minister has the call. Mr TAYLOR 231027 Our reforms will crack down on dodgy practices, on the price gouging that the ACCC found rife in this sector—and it is true. You could join with us this week to pass this legislation, because the price gouging must go—the loyalty tax must go. That's why the legislation will extend to contract orders and asset divestiture, as we see in other countries. It's absolutely astonishing that those opposite are siding with the big energy companies. It must be because they want higher electricity prices, just as they want a 45 per cent emissions reduction target, a target that will be a wrecking ball through the economy, a target that will mean 105 grams per kilometre for vehicles, when Toyota Hiluxes are at 200 and Ford Rangers at 234. We are the party of lower electricity prices and a strong economy. Energy 29 14:49 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister deny reports that a significant delegation of government members urged the government to abandon its discredited divestment policy, including the member for Curtin and the members for Reid, McMillan and Mackellar? Given the Prime Minister has already turned his big stick into a toothpick, will the Prime Minister now abandon his discredited divestment laws, which even his own members do not support? 14:50 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook That's something, coming from the biggest wet newspaper in the parliament. This is the form of 'Blue Steel' over there, striking a pose with his sharp suits and his slick look, swaggering around the electorate, measuring up the curtains to the Treasurer's suite, thinking he's already there. This is a shadow Treasurer who, when he was Treasurer, was presiding over economic wreckage and a budget that was forever in deficit. That was his form when he was the Treasurer of this country. But we also know that he had a few other jobs when he was in government. He had a few other jobs, and I'll come back to those after I've had the opportunity to address what the member has addressed. Our government is supporting tough new laws to ensure that the big electricity companies are held to account, and we would call on the Labor Party when those laws are introduced to support them and to do so this week. Failure to do so will tell every single electricity customer in Australia today that the Labor Party is for higher electricity prices and letting the big electricity companies off the hook. Our government is united on the issue of getting electricity prices down. We are united on standing up for Australians, who do not want to see higher electricity bills that would be brought about by a 45 per cent emissions reduction target. We are united on the point of ensuring that those big electricity companies are held to account for what they do to Australian customers. That's what we'll be bringing into this House. And you'll have plenty of opportunity—and my challenge to the Labor Party is this: Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of Australia's electricity customers, who want lower prices, or are you on the side of the big electricity companies, which want to take the money for themselves? Economy 29 14:52 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government's actions to build a stronger economy are providing choice and control that Australians with a disability rely on without increasing taxes? How would different approaches to economic management jeopardise the rollout and management of the National Disability Insurance Scheme? 14:52 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I do thank the member for Berowra for his question. He is my northern neighbour and a very strong champion for Australians with disability. As the member for Berowra knows, the vital services upon which Australians with disability depend can only be funded if we have a strong economy and a strong budget. At the very core of those services is the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Over 200,000 Australians with disability are now supported by the National Disability Insurance Scheme, with 60,000 of them receiving support for the first time. In the electorate of Berowra, I'm pleased to say, almost 2,000 people will benefit from the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It's applying in a whole range of different ways. The Early Childhood Early Intervention pathway is now supporting over 6,600 children, and that is transforming lives for children at a vital and critical stage of life. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded under our Liberal-National government, with over $8 billion in the Commonwealth budget in 2018-19 out of a total of nearly $17 billion, including the state and territory contribution. By 2021-22, that number rises to $22 billion. And it's not just spending on the NDIS which is rising; overall spending on social security and welfare was $132 billion in the last full financial year for which Labor had responsibility. In 2018-19 it is up to $176 billion. But here is the remarkable and the noteworthy thing: all of that has happened without raising taxes. We are moving, on this side of the House, from budget deficit to balance and a surplus. At the same time, we have maintained that discipline. We have made social welfare spending sustainable, when it was rising unsustainably under the previous government. It's called good management, which is not something the left are interested in. It's not something they know about; it's not something they care about. They don't go and have street protests, saying, 'We want good management.' But there is nothing more important to the livelihoods and fortunes of the Australian people, and that is why we are delivering with a strong budget and a strong economy that funds the essential services that Australians rely on. Banking and Financial Services 29 14:55 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. The Assistant Treasurer is responsible for financial services, including the big banks. Can the Assistant Treasurer confirm that, instead of cracking down on misconduct in the banking sector, he voted against a royal commission 26 times and he is now exploiting the victims of banking misconduct by using the royal commission as an opportunity to raise funds for the Liberal Party? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House, on a point of order? Mr Pyne 9V5 I'm not sure why the latter half of that question is in order. It's also a very unfortunate slur and smear on the Assistant Treasurer. I would ask her to withdraw— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Could the Leader of the House just pause for a second? I'm trying to hear the Leader of the House without those behind him interjecting. Mr Pyne 9V5 I think the phraseology of the member for Hotham should be withdrawn. It was a slur on the Assistant Treasurer. The second half of the question is not within the Assistant Treasurer's responsibilities and, therefore, is not in order. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG When I seek to hear from the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business, could I just say to those interjecting behind them that they really don't help the cause of the person at the despatch box who is seeking to make the point of order. The Manager of Opposition Business, on the point of order? Mr Burke DYW The questions go directly to the use of the minister's ministerial authority and the role that he has with financial services. They refer to him using that office, with respect to the royal commission, quite specifically for a fundraiser. This has also appeared online as an article— The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business won't introduce new material. We're just simply adjudicating on the question. It's not an opportunity— Mr Burke DYW Quite simply, what the question asks is whether or not he has used his ministerial authority in this way, instead of looking after the victims of the banks. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House, further to the point of order? Mr Pyne 9V5 Firstly, that's not what the question asked, and now it is being changed by the Manager of Opposition Business. Secondly, the responsibility for the royal commission is in the portfolio of the Treasurer, not the Assistant Treasurer, and therefore the question is misdirected to the Assistant Treasurer. It should be answered, if at all, by the Treasurer. It's simply a political ruse and an attempt to smear the Assistant Treasurer. For that reason alone, it should be ruled out. The SPEAKER 00APG I'm ready to rule on the matter, having listened to both the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business. I'm certainly not comfortable with the language that just makes assertions, as it did—I'm really not—and those on my left wouldn't be comfortable if that sort of language was directed back at them. That language shouldn't be in a question. The first part of the question is clearly in order, which was about whether the minister voted in a certain way. I'm going to allow the minister to address that part of it and caution future questions. 14:59 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I thank the member for her question. Just to put to rest any doubt as to the issue at stake, Fairfax has reported that I was invited by the member for Fisher to speak— The SPEAKER 00APG No, the Assistant Treasurer—I've ruled out the second part of the question that relates to it on the basis that it was traducing his character. If the assistant minister wants to refer to the matters that I've ruled out of order, I don't think that's a good idea. I've ruled them out of order quite deliberately as a result of their language and because of the improper motives that are implied. Mr ROBERT HWT Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is the government that instituted the royal commission. This is the government that put the royal commission into place. Let me give some perspective to those opposite. I did all of the post-GFC banking inquiries. I did the Ripoll inquiry into post FOFA. On all of those areas, in all of those issues, not once did those opposite raise this issue. In fact, 34 days before this government was elected in 2013, the Leader of the Opposition made the point that our banks were well regulated and well structured, six years after the GFC, after $60 billion or $70 billion was wiped off the balance sheets of individual Australians, as we saw through all of the post-GFC bank inquiries—and those opposite did nothing. They did nothing on the other side. Yet what this government has done is legion. Even last week we saw penalties being increased 500 per cent in terms of criminal penalties and 400 per cent in terms of civil penalties, and Labor wanted to vote against that. For six years— Ms O'Neil interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Hotham! Mr ROBERT HWT those opposite dealt with the post-GFC banking inquiries and didn't move once when it came to penalties—not a single time when it came to penalties. Well, this government is acting. Ms O'Neil interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hotham is now warned. Mr ROBERT HWT Penalties have now increased tenfold for corporations, and criminal penalties fivefold, for those who are seeking to defraud Australian people, corporations and small businesses. Ms O'Neil interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hotham has been warned. Mr ROBERT HWT That's what this government is doing. We're acting. We're not sitting back and doing nothing. This government instituted the royal commission. Those opposite, after the GFC, simply put a parliamentary inquiry in place. So, if those opposite want to look at what they did after the GFC compared to what this government has done, bring it on, I say. Bring on what we have done on this side in dealing with the phenomenal issues we've seen, the malfeasance we've seen. Bring it on! If those opposite want to talk about superannuation, let's have a discussion about protecting your super, where we want to save, right now, five million Australians from being overcharged on insurance, and those opposite aren't supporting us. There are 2.4 million Australians with two super accounts paying two lots of insurance. There are 44,000 Australians with five super accounts paying five lots of insurance. Why don't those opposite stop posturing and come and join us in helping to protect vulnerable Australians? Women's Financial Security 31 15:03 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations and Minister for Women. Will the minister outline to the House how the government's actions to build a stronger economy support women to save for their future and their retirement without raising taxes? What would the consequences for women's financial security be were an alternative course of action followed? Ms Burney interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Barton is warned. 15:03 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for her question. She is an incredibly hardworking member for her electorate of Forrest and a powerful advocate here in the nation's parliament. And she is a particularly powerful advocate for the girls and women of her electorate because she wants to see rural and regional women have the same opportunities as their city cousins. She wants to make sure that they achieve their full potential, and that is what every single member on this side wants as well because we know that, when women do well, their families do well, and our nation and our country prosper. We know on this side that with a strong economy, when we are able to deliver budget surpluses, we are able to help women build their financial security. We are able to better secure their economic future. Unlike those one-trick ponies opposite, whose answer is always tax, tax, tax and more tax on every man, woman, business and investment in this country, we help women save for their future through having a strong economy. That is why it has taken our government to deliver the first-ever Women's Economic Security Statement, a statement that is built around— Opposition members interjecting— Ms O'DWYER LKU I know it's very inconvenient for those opposite, because they were all words, but very short on actions. Our Women's Economic Security Statement has been built around three pillars: increasing women's workforce participation; building better financial security, resilience and independence; and ensuring that women have better earning potential. We are doing it through practical measures like boosting female founders. This is almost $14 million directed at women who are entrepreneurs, building businesses and creating opportunities for themselves and their fellow Australians. We know that it is very hard for women to access finance, so we are putting in place a practical measure that will help them build their businesses. We know that those opposite have no plan other than to raise taxes. Their plan is all about more taxes on business, on housing, on investment and on superannuation. Let us not forget their mega retiree tax, a tax that would particularly hurt women: 30 per cent more women would be impacted by this tax, women who are vulnerable, at a time in their lives where they cannot afford it. At a time in their lives where they would be more financially vulnerable, those opposite would slug them. Our government would actually support women; those opposite would not. National Security 31 15:06 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Attorney-General: clause 9(1) of schedule 1 of the Intelligence Services Act states that it is a criminal offence punishable by two years in prison to disclose a private submission of the intelligence committee unless that disclosure is authorised in writing by the relevant agency head. Has the Attorney-General been provided with any advice as to whether the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police gave a written authorisation to allow this private submission to be disclosed? 15:07 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce It's not unlike the shadow Attorney-General to read only half the provision. 9(2) says: Subclause (1) does not apply to the disclosure or publication by a person of a matter of which the person has become aware otherwise than because of the giving of any evidence before, or the production of any document to, the Committee. I can send you a hard copy later. Yesterday we were asked by the shadow Attorney-General whether we were aware of a newspaper article that, in his words, appears to quote from what may or may not have been a confidential submission to the joint committee. Appearances are never more deceiving than when they are apparitions of the shadow A-G. Last night I did speak with the Commissioner of the AFP. Further, I also sought summary information around the prior circulation of the material that later came to be submitted in a letter by the commissioner to the joint committee. The commissioner confirmed that the submission was not potentially or operationally sensitive or security classified. The material contained in the letter was material that received circulation before it was produced as a document to the committee, so it would actually appear— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides: not only I but also the vast majority of members of this place are trying to hear the Attorney-General's answer. I'm trying to listen carefully. Members need to cease interjecting. Mr PORTER 208884 Despite how it appears to the shadow Attorney-General, it actually appears that, given the nature and prior circulation of the material in question, any subsequent dealings of it would never fall within the scope of prohibitions in the Intelligence Services Act or the Crimes Act, but if the shadow Attorney takes a different view, he can refer the matter if he feels fit. The larger question, I think, is how much more constructive could the shadow Attorney-General be if he put his considerable legal skills to reading the submissions, understanding what they say, acting on them appropriately and passing this counterencryption bill this week? Rural and Regional Australia 32 15:09 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation tabled its report Regions at the readyin June this year. It found that we need long-term flexible strategies that adapt to the individual regions of Australia. The bipartisan report also recommends the government develop a regional Australia white paper. After a year of analysis, 14 public hearings and almost 200 written submissions, there is great interest in the government's response. Can the Deputy Prime Minister provide an update on when we can expect the government's response to this very important report? 15:10 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina How refreshing it is to have two questions about the economy, about the importance of regional Australia, from the crossbench. We don't ever hear any Labor member getting up and asking questions about the economy. They're always delving into those Canberra bubble issues. We intend to have the government's response finalised by the end of the year. Minister McKenzie, in the other place, will coordinate the whole-of-government response. I note the member has indicated the number of round tables and submissions to get to this point. That's part of the process. This is a good thing. It's a good thing because people are interested in regional Australia. The member knows and we on this side know that, when our regions are strong, so too is our economy. When the regions are strong, so too is our nation. Many, many people have fed into the process, and it shows that regional people are engaged. They are committed, they are passionate and they are wanting to build a better economy and, through that, wanting to build a better nation. Thanks to good economic management, we will deliver a surplus budget next April. And next year that will enable us to invest in the essential services and the infrastructure that regional Australians want, expect and deserve. We thank the committee members, including the member for Indi, and I note that the member for Murray has also played an important part in that committee. We thank him for his work and we thank the members on that committee for their important work in making sure that there is a spotlight on regional Australia, making sure that all the sorts of things that we talk about in the regional Australia space are recognised, such as decentralisation. The government believes in and is delivering decentralisation. We also welcome the interest in regional deals. We talk about the Barkly deal at Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory and the deals at Bundaberg and Hervey Bay in the member for Hinkler's electorate. They are progressing and progressing well. The report will also be an important input into our policy development in these areas, including regional deals, decentralisation and the all-important population strategy. We believe rural and regional Australia deserves good long-term local jobs, and we're committed to doing just that. We are helping small business. We're helping them with the lowest tax rate for 78 years. We're helping them with the instant asset write-off—we're extending that measure, which so many regional businesses have participated in. Talking about decentralisation, just last week we heard the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources highlight the skills of people who want to move to Armidale or Orange through the APVMA, through the Regional Investment Corporation. There were applications from across the world and across Australia for those important positions. We've got AMSA moving their regional headquarters to Coffs Harbour—50 new jobs. People want to get involved in regional Australia. The member for Indi knows how important it is. It's a shame those opposite don't. (Time expired) Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 33 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Dress Code 33 15:13 The SPEAKER 00APG Yesterday the Manager of Opposition Business asked me to investigate why a journalist had been asked to leave the press gallery during question time as a result of her standard of dress. I should mention first—and I'll take members through this if they can be patient—that the standard of dress for members in the chamber is a matter for the individual judgement for each member, although ultimate discretion rests with the Speaker, as you know. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I ought to be able to respond to this point without catcalling, frankly. It will take about a minute, or if you keep doing that it will take five minutes. Just take a chance and listen to every word I have to say. I should mention first that the standard of dress for members in the chamber is a matter for the individual judgement of each member, although ultimate discretion rests with the Speaker. For those who queried that, it is very well written up in Practice. I'm sorry it's news to them. Previous speakers have indicated that members should dress in a formal manner in keeping with business and professional standards. These standards have been codified in the media rules for journalists attending the chambers and they have been published and they have tabled, I believe. Paragraph 5.14 of the media rules states: 'When in the chambers, press gallery members should maintain the standards of dress adopted by the majority of senators and members.' The rules continue: 'In the House of Representatives this may include a shirt with a collar, jacket and trousers, for men, and a similar standard of formality for women.' Questions about whether dress meets the standard are inevitably matters of judgement. In this case, and having regard to the attire of members generally, the journalist in question was attired in a way which would be reasonably considered as professional business attire. She should, in hindsight, not have been asked to leave. Any future review of the media rules may wish to reconsider the best way to describe the chamber dress code for journalists. In the interim, I've asked that the definition of 'formal business attire' for female journalists in the chamber be applied having regard to the attire of members generally. I thank the House. 15:16 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Mr Speaker, thank you for your remarks in relation to this matter. Given your statement, I'd like to apologise on behalf of this side of the House to Ms Karvelas for being ejected yesterday from the press gallery. DOCUMENTS 33 DOCUMENTS Presentation 33 15:17 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. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 33 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions in Writing 33 15:17 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon Mr Speaker, under standing order 105(b), I refer to questions on notice Nos 1034 and 1035, which have been on the Notice Paper for 110 days. I kindly ask that you write to the relevant ministers seeking reasons for the delay in answering these questions. 15:17 The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the member for Braddon and I will so write this afternoon. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 34 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Climate Change 34 15:17 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Port Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure to take effective action on climate change. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:17 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide This is a matter of public importance because, as we meet today in the House of Representatives, the nations of the world are meeting at the 24th conference of the parties, the COP, to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This morning, perhaps the most famous naturalist in the world, David Attenborough, addressed that conference and said: 'It is a man-made disaster on a global scale and our greatest threat in thousands of years of human existence.' This very grave statement by the most legendary naturalist on the face of the planet follows the recent publication of a confronting report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, which laid out the impacts of climate change at a level of two degrees Celsius of global warming on the one hand and 1.5 degrees Celsius following the Paris climate agreement of 2015. That report shows that two degrees of global warming will have a devastating impact on our natural environment and human society as we understand it. Just as one example, the IPCC has said that, at two degrees of global warming, more than 99 per cent of the world's coral reefs will be destroyed—almost all of our world's coral reefs will be destroyed. Our own coral reef, the Great Barrier Reef, one of the seven natural wonders of the world, has already been subject to two major bleaching events in the last three years. And the Bureau of Meteorology only recently advised that there is a 70 per cent chance of an El Nino building in the Pacific over the course of the coming summer, which would place the reef under threat of a third major bleaching event in just four years. Before these last three years there has been only one major bleaching event in the recorded history of the Great Barrier Reef. It's not just the IPCC report that has underlined the gravity of even two degrees of global warming. The World Bank only a couple of years ago indicated that two degrees of global warming would wipe out as much as 20 per cent of global cereal production, including fully 50 per cent of cereal production on the continent of Africa, which, as we know, is already struggling to feed its people and will be the area where most of the world's population increase over coming decades occurs. The grave thing about these reports is that we are not even close to tracking to keeping global warming below two degrees. At the moment we're advised that we're currently tracking to somewhere between three and four degrees of global warming, whose impacts are barely able to be imagined. The world is now facing a climate emergency. This emergency won't unfold over the course of the coming year or even few years; this emergency will unfold over coming decades, but we are starting to see the impacts of climate change now. Much earlier than 20 or 25 years ago we were advised that we'd see those impacts. We're starting to see them now and they are frightening. Barack Obama said when he was President of the United States: We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it. Last week here in Australia literally thousands of students, overwhelmingly with the permission of their parents, decided to take a day off school and march in the streets to protest at the lack of reasonable action by this parliament and this government. We all want kids to go to school, but I think on this side of the parliament we also understand the deep frustration that young Australians at school and beyond school age feel at the lack of action by our generation on climate change, particularly in this building. I talk to young Australians, as I know members of this House across the aisle talk to young Australians, all the time. I hear them saying just how let down they feel by our generation in dealing with something that they feel is going to be such a substantial issue over the course of what we hope will be their very long lives. They feel let down in an unforgiveable way. None of us should fall for the rubbish that is often spouted by commentators—and unfortunately some on the other side of the House—that what Australia does doesn't matter in this debate. Yes, we are a small nation. We don't even rate in the top 50 of the world's nations in population, but we rate in the top 15 in the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted from this economy. We are a wealthy nation that has, along with other members of the OECD, grown wealthy on the back of long-term industrialisation. We are the highest per capita producer of greenhouse gases. If Australia won't act and take responsible strong action on climate change, which nation on the face of the planet should be expected to act? We have a deep responsibility in this area, as a good global citizen, a friend and a neighbour to communities in our region for whom climate change poses a threat. As parents, grandparents, uncles and aunties we have a generational responsibility to do everything we reasonably can to ensure our children and grandchildren enjoy a natural environment at least as good as the one that we enjoy. We are a wealthy nation, but it is in our own self-interest to act on climate change, because our continent is deeply vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. This continent already pushes us up right against the limits of human tolerance to heat. This continent has agricultural regions that are deeply vulnerable to very clear structural trends, already identified by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, in rainfall, particularly the Murray-Darling Basin region in eastern Australia and the Wheatbelt in the South West of Western Australia. We largely live on coasts, with coastal communities that are deeply vulnerable to very quickly accelerating sea level rise, which over time will pose risks to literally billions and billions of dollars of assets. And we know that already the increase in heat events and other extreme weather events is posing a substantial risk to the health of Australians. In this area, government action and government policy matter. When we were in government, carbon pollution levels came down by more than 10 per cent in those six years. We were the fourth most attractive investment destination in renewable energy. We had state governments in New South Wales and Queensland finally acting on an end to broadscale land clearing of remnant vegetation. This government's record could not be different. Carbon pollution has been rising since this government came to office and is projected to continue to rise all the way to 2030, which is as far as the government's projections go. The new climate change minister can't even pinpoint a day on which she thinks carbon pollution might eventually peak. We are now pretty much the only major advanced economy where carbon pollution and greenhouse gases are going up rather than coming down. In spite of the Prime Minister and all of his ministers getting up at the despatch box and doing media conferences to say that we'll meet our targets in a canter, no-one believes them. Their own data doesn't show it and the United Nations Emissions gap report 2018 from a couple of weeks ago doesn't show it, because it simply is not happening. As Malcolm Turnbull said again today, as Rob Stokes said on the front page of The Sydney Morning Herald, this federal coalition is simply genetically incapable of taking climate change action. It is so deeply divided that it is incapable of taking action in this policy area. It doesn't have to be that way. The UK Conservatives understood that this was in the national interest. They're tracking to a budget at around 2030 of not a five per cent reduction in carbon pollution, which is this government's track record, but a 61 per cent reduction in carbon pollution. At the same time, they're producing about three times as much steel as Australia and have 800,000 workers still working in the automotive industry—an industry that this government shut down in Australia—which demonstrates that decarbonisation and the maintenance of a strong industrial base are possible and are consistent with a strong, growing economy. As Malcolm Turnbull has said, this coalition is just incapable. Its division, its ideological obsessions, are holding this nation hostage on a critically important policy area. The division in the coalition party room is holding future generations hostage. That's why they were marching in the streets last week. Labor isn't just ready. We're not just ready to take action here; we are impatient to take action, because we know that this is in the national interest, that this is in our children's interest, and that this is in our grandchildren's interest. But to look after those interests, we need a change of government. 15:27 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack The Labor Party does have some nerve. We still don't know what their climate policies are but we know they've got a track record. It's right up there with their track record on the economy—we know that that's a mess, and once again we're left to clean up the mess. Their legacy on climate change was failed policy after failed policy. They have no substance when it comes to policy—plenty of noise but no substance, and we're hearing that across the chamber now. The member for Port Adelaide wants to lock in a 45 per cent emissions target—45 per cent! Can you believe that? But they can't explain to the Australian people how they'll get there. They can't explain to Australians how much it's going to cost and they won't explain how many jobs will be lost as a result of it. Labor needs to explain to every farmer, every truck driver, every factory worker and every smelter worker where their future lies, because under Labor their jobs are gone. Labor hasn't delivered a single climate policy that didn't result in chaos. We saw this last time they were in government. We remember pink batts. What happened to the pink batteries? Have you heard any more about the pink batteries? No? Anyone heard about the pink batteries? Are they gone now? They're off the agenda. That went well, didn't it? We remember the carbon tax that was never going to happen, until it was sprung on Australians after an election. When this government removed that carbon tax we saved Australian households $550 a year. And we remember how the Labor Party, who described climate change as 'the great moral challenge of our time', walked away from delivering a climate policy when things got difficult—and they'll do it again. They talk big now; they talk big in opposition. But when they get into government and once they have their hands on the till, we cannot trust them. We know you cannot trust Labor. They'll talk big and talk even bigger in opposition. They will pluck numbers out of the air, which is what they've done with their 45 per cent emissions reduction and a 50 per cent renewable energy target. But what do we know about those numbers? Mr Conroy 249127 You really are the L-plate minister! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Shortland is warned. Ms PRICE 249308 What are Labor so desperate to keep out of the public domain? Let's have a look at what the broader population have said about our policies and the economy-wrecking policies of the Labor Party. The Business Council of Australia said: The emissions target of 26% is appropriate and achievable. 45% is an economy wrecking target. What did the CFMMEU say about Labor's policies? They said: … an increased renewable energy target of 50 per cent by 2030 will increase the cost of electricity for manufacturing and ordinary households while being a poor tool to reduce Australia's overall global warming emissions. The National Farmers' Federation said that it would hinder agricultural competitiveness and economic growth. The Minerals Council of Australia, on the 45 per cent emissions reduction target, said: The target is not based on detailed economic analysis of its impact on growth, living standards and energy costs. … The proposed target has the look and feel of an ambit claim. The list goes on. I'm now down to six minutes and 40 seconds left. We know the Labor Party is a wrecking ball to the economy, because we've seen what Labor has done in the past. The Climate Change Authority modelling indicated that a 45 per cent target would require a new carbon tax of $135 per tonne. That is more than five times Labor's first carbon tax. You can't make this stuff up. It's more than 12 times the cost of one tonne of abatement through the Emissions Reductions Fund. That's one of our climate change policies, by the way—just to educate those on the other side. The Australian Energy Council has stated Labor's plan for a net zero emissions target by 2050 would cost at least $230 billion by 2050—and it would all be paid by the electricity consumers. Everyday Australians and small- and medium-sized business people would be paying for that. It would be $230 billion in new costs to our economy to back up the $200 billion in the new taxes that we will get if those opposite ever sit over here. Who is going to feel the pain of that? Retirees, pensioners and homeowners will all suffer under that lot opposite. How many more costs does the Labor Party want to impose on the Australian economy? We have achieved five years of strong economic management. That's what the good men and women of the coalition have achieved in the last five years. We stand by our record and are very proud of our record, but the greatest risk to what we've achieved for the Australian economy is those people sitting on the other side of the chamber. The Labor Party don't care about jobs or the economy. They're walking away from ordinary Australians. But we haven't walked away. We've been getting on with it. We're not interested in grandstanding, ideology or plucking numbers out of the air. We are not interested in that. We are interested in delivering real policies and real outcomes for everyday Australians. Let's talk about another good environment policy. Let's talk about our record on renewable energy, which those opposite think we've done nothing on. The coalition has driven investment in renewable energy in the last five years. We're leading the world in rooftop solar, with some two million households around Australia. It's the coalition who has driven nearly $20 billion in renewable investment through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency, under our government, is investing in next-generation technologies. We're investing in hydrogen. We're supporting lithium projects because we know batteries are key to a lower emissions future. That's what we're doing. Wind and solar generation in the National Electricity Market is projected to increase by 250 per cent over the next three years. I think that's a pretty good record. We will reach our 23.5 per cent renewable energy target because we have put in place real policies that work. That's action. They're not just words, which those opposite just continue to throw across here. We cannot forget the Emissions Reduction Fund. Nearly 200 million tonnes of abatement was contracted through this program since it was instigated in 2015 by this side of the House. It's been a resounding success. It's been a cost-effective method of reducing emissions that has actually created jobs. The Emissions Reduction Fund is an excellent climate policy, but the benefits go far beyond just reducing emissions. We've contracted with farmers, landholders and Indigenous groups to lower emissions. About 80 per cent of the carbon abatement through the Emissions Reduction Fund has been delivered by farmers. As someone from a regional seat—the largest seat in Australia—I am very proud of that. We know that many of the farmers, especially on the east coast at the moment, have been doing it tough and we know the drought has been hard on agriculture. Because of the Emissions Reduction Fund, the farmers who have tapped into that program have been able to have another stream of income. People say it's an alternative stream of income, but, for some, it's their only stream of income. So I'm very proud of what the Emissions Reduction Fund is actually doing for regional Australia. These farmers have been able to revegetate degraded land, which is an excellent outcome for the environment. They've had the support of the coalition when times are tough. That's what we do on this side: we look after regional Australia. This program is not only supporting the farmers but also supporting regional communities. These projects will generate revenue of more than $1.8 billion over coming years through the sale of carbon credits, creating jobs, improving the environment and reducing emissions. I've heard the member for Port Adelaide say that the Emissions Reduction Fund is 'a colossal waste of taxpayers' money'. The member for Port Adelaide needs to explain his comments. He needs to look regional Australians in the eye and explain to them why he thinks investing in their community is a colossal waste of money. On this side, we're about supporting Australians, not hitting them with new taxes. These aren't ideas or thought bubbles. We're actually doing it. We're doing it right now. These are real outcomes and real policies that are reducing emissions whilst strengthening our economy. We can look after our economy and the environment at the same time. Sometimes we've just got to try a bit harder, and that's what we're doing on this side. We're a responsible government and we know that we will not need to wreck the economy to address climate change. We're committed to reducing our emissions by 26 to 28 per cent under the Paris Agreement, and we will get there. It's responsible, it's achievable and it won't cost jobs or wreck our economy. Next week I'm off to Poland, and I'm very proud to be able to do that. We've got a good track record and I look forward to sharing our good policies with people in Poland. We know that we only contribute 1.3 per cent of global emissions. We will take our place in the globe, and I'm very, very proud of our record. 15:37 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I'm a bit flustered, I have to admit. We've just seen a demonstration of what I could only describe as peak denial. We've got to a point now where the Australian federal Minister for the Environment is in peak denial. We've got a government in which we know there has been political failure. We've seen their abject failure in trying to get a policy of climate change through this parliament and implement it for this country and have the responsibility of implementing an actual climate change policy. They've failed politically, but I think it's more than that. We, on this side, have tried. We've tried rational argument, we've tried scientific data and we've tried logic, but none of this seems to work. We've been confused for years here. We had thought: 'It's just a political failure. They're tearing each other apart and they're unable to get four different policies through their own party room.' But I was sitting there thinking and listening to the minister, trying to understand what she was saying, when it dawned on me that it's not just political failure; there's a failure of imagination on the other side by this government. There's an absolute failure to take responsibility for not just this generation but future generations in a policy area which is existential. It is about the future for our kids and our grandchildren and also the future of this planet, and they have failed miserably to actually implement any type of policy. This is something that we can argue about and we can do the politics around, but it's deeply saddening. The member for Port Adelaide quite rightly pointed out the children and the young kids that protested over the last couple of days' strike on climate change. I was there at the Treasury building in Melbourne, Victoria, where there were thousands of kids speaking up for their future, asking us as politicians to do something about their future and the future of the planet. A lot of people on the other side said, 'They shouldn't leave school,' and all the rest of it. Do you know what I tell kids when I visit schools? I say: 'Even though you can't vote, you're part of this democracy. You're participants. You have a right and you have a voice in our democracy. And you have every right to advocate for issues that have an impact on your lives and the lives of your families and your friends and your communities.' So I take my hat off to these kids, who fundamentally understand what this issue is about. It's about their future and the future of the planet. I think they're just as confused about why this place, this parliament, and this government can't actually implement a policy. This issue is so important for so many in my electorate and across Australia. People are screaming out for a plan to be put in place—something sensible that does something. The minister over there pointed out that we didn't have a policy. That's just not true. We know what our policy is. We've announced it. The member for Port Adelaide, our leader, our frontbench team—all of us on this side—have talked about what we are planning to do if we win government. It's pretty clear-cut. We've got a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. We've got a target of 45 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. And we have a commitment to inject billions of dollars of additional capital into the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and $5 million into the Energy Security and Modernisation Fund. They're big figures. It's about making sure that we invest in renewable energy and renewable energy infrastructure. That's what we need to build in order to utilise the renewable energy that is so abundant in this country. We have the imagination to take that step and do something for the future. That's what we're about. There are important details around this, and I won't go into all of them. But we do have a very strong policy on climate change. We've seen this government try four times—help me out here, member for Port Adelaide, because I'm losing count—in putting forward an energy policy. I'm trying to remember. There was a clean energy target, which then Prime Minister Turnbull tried to put up, and it collapsed. Then there was the emissions intensity scheme. They tried to put that up, and it collapsed. What was the next one? Ms Madeleine King 102376 The NEG. Mr KHALIL 101351 The NEG. I forgot about the NEG! It got put up, but it was an absolute failure. They couldn't get it through the party room. It shows the abject, absolute failure of this government to do what is right by the people of Australia and the world and for the future of the kids who protested last week. We're going to do better. We're going to have a climate change policy that makes a difference to future generations and to this country. (Time expired) 15:42 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer As a rural and regional member of parliament, who represents the people out there, not the people in here, I would like to bring some of those voices to this debate today, because it's very easy to the play games, which we see Labor indulge in, about 'What's the latest tweet?' and about 'Who is saying what to whom?' and about the gossip, the innuendo and the rhetoric. We're here for the people out there, and I want to bring their voices front and centre to this debate. What we've heard from the shadow minister and what I know we will hear from the rest of the speakers is a combination of criticism and of frightening people with impending doom, without recognising that clear-sighted, sensible policy actually produces results in both the energy and the climate change space. If you fail to recognise the need to bring those together in a sensible way, you won't build the economic future that Australians deserve. Here are some of those voices, my constituents. The Chairman of the West Corurgan Board of Management, which looks after water delivery and farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin, said: Growers facing increased charges of more than 100 per cent. Exorbitant electricity costs will only hasten the demise of our small communities. Ken Rebetzke in Griffith said: How can a country like Australia with its vast natural resources allow people to sit in the dark and in the cold and not be able to pay for an essential service? How can any government allow this to happen? Roger Conway from Tocumwal said: I worked hard to keep my wife as a stay at home mum which we succeeded in doing, what is going on? My electricity provider just put my weekly payment up from $52 pw to $91 pw. We are using less electricity now than we have done in the past, but paying more. John, from a busy central Albury coffee shop and cafe, said: These electricity charges are killing me—worse still they are stopping me putting on more staff. In fact I have had to put some of our casuals off as a result. If you go out and walk a mile in their shoes, members of the Labor Party, you will understand this too, and you will know that the policy parameters matter a great deal around energy and climate change. No-one is suggesting that there isn't a real issue for the globe to face on man-made climate change. Of course we have different views. Of course we understand that people in the community have different views. But where it lands, doing the hard yards, is working out a policy that makes sense. I can tell you that Labor's policy makes no sense. We know that, to have an effective energy policy, you look at a reliability guarantee that provides for investment in dispatchable power and you look at an emissions guarantee that defines what your emissions target is. We've defined ours at 26 per cent by 2030, and we're on track, as the Prime Minister said in question time, to smash Kyoto 1, smash Kyoto 2 and meet our Paris obligations. Where Labor lands on this policy is in a place that has no regard for the cost of electricity, because with a 45 per cent emissions reduction target—and the member for Port Adelaide has even squibbed that with a couple of his greener audiences by saying, 'Of course, we want to increase that'—we know that electricity power prices will go up. When you look at all of the fact sheets that Labor's putting out now about its climate change policy, they don't mention power or the cost of power. Labor knows that its climate change policy is completely incompatible with keeping power prices down, but that is not its rhetoric. Here we have Labor's current policy on more renewable energy and cheaper power, and I'm quoting: Australia is in an energy crisis … Power bills are out of control … Labor has a plan to deliver more renewable energy and cheaper power. We know that those two elements in its policy are totally inconsistent. So Labor pays lip-service to cheaper power, but that's all it is, because in the real world its policy can't deliver that. Labor's policy continues: Labor's Household Battery Program will provide a $2,000 rebate for … households … So that's money much like the pink batts scheme. It continues: Establishing a $10 million Clean Energy Training Fund … Look at every Labor policy, and you find money for the unions. I know that's the way they operate, but how is this going to help? Then there's a curious policy: Making it mandatory for power stations and coal mines to participate in pooled redundancy schemes—to help ensure every worker impacted by a closure is provided an offer of employment— somewhere else. But what Labor is not doing—in fact, it's making a mockery of our policy to do this—is taking a big stick to the power companies that would seek to gouge consumers. So they're saying, 'Let's look after the workers in these companies'—okay, fine; I get that—'but let's not do anything against the gouging that electricity companies are engaging in with consumers.' We're on the side of consumers. 15:47 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond This is a government that has failed to take any effective action on climate change, at a time when Australians are constantly calling out for action. We just saw thousands of young people taking to the streets and making their voices heard. They want action from this government, yet the Liberals and Nationals have walked away completely from their responsibility to address climate change. They have walked away from their responsibility to future generations, because this government just doesn't listen and just doesn't care. They're too consumed with talking about themselves and with their chaos and their dysfunction, which are on full display. This is also a government of climate change deniers—in particular, the National Party. As I often say in this House, National Party choices hurt. Can I tell you: when the National Party choose not to take action on climate change, that hurts regional and rural Australia. It's only this side that understands the needs of regional Australia. In contrast to all the current government's inaction, a Shorten Labor government will make taking action on climate change a priority. It is our promise to future generations to take that action. Of course, as we've said, our preference is to achieve a bipartisan agreement on energy policy, but the Prime Minister and his government are too divided and too out of touch to agree on a policy that can lower power prices, boost renewables and address climate change. That's what's needed. The fact is that, under this chaotic government, carbon pollution is continuing to go up and up, and this after pollution actually fell under the previous Labor government. This government's latest data, released on Friday, shows carbon emissions are now at their highest level since 2011. We are now essentially the only major advanced economy where greenhouse gases are rising rather than coming down. We are not meeting our targets, and the government has no plan. We have a massive environmental and economic challenge in getting pollution levels down. Recent studies have shown that the 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years, and the last four have been the hottest. Just today we heard from the world-renowned naturalist Sir David Attenborough, who said: The world's people have spoken. … Time is running out. They want you, the decision-makers, to act now. Leaders of the world, you must lead. The continuation of our civilisations, and the natural world upon which we depend, is in your hands. But this government just doesn't care. And why is that? Because the climate change deniers have taken over the government; that's why. They're the ones whose run the show. The fact is that we have a Prime Minister and a government who refuse to act. The only way to get action from Canberra on climate change is to change the government. That's the only way. The Liberals and Nationals have presided over an unprecedented energy crisis that has seen power prices skyrocket and pollution rise while investment confidence has been smashed. That's the reality. Quite frankly, this is a government of environmental vandals. We see it federally and we see it at a state level in New South Wales. I'd like to raise an issue in relation to this locally—in Tweed Heads, in my electorate. We've seen the economic vandalism on display with the Nationals plan to impose a large hospital at Cudgen, on state significant farmland—rich agricultural land. Thousands of local farmers and residents continue to rally against the proposed site, highlighting its unique value as high-yield agricultural land. At a time when we are feeling the impacts of climate change, at a time of extreme drought, we should be preserving our precious farmlands. But what do the National Party do? They destroy it. They just want to build on it. They want to sell it off and build on it. Make no mistake: the National Party are no friends of the farmers. These concerns about potential environmental impacts on this hospital site are also held by the Tweed Shire Council, who publicly expressed their opposition. Recently they moved a motion to refer the project to the federal Minister for the Environment for assessment under the EPBC Act, and I commend them for this action. Today I wrote to the Minister for the Environment requesting that she urgently refer the project for consideration under the EPBC Act. Acting on climate change at all levels is vitally important, and it should be driven by a federal government. That's the reality. But the fact is that the Liberals and Nationals are anti renewables, anti climate science and anti any real policies that will bring down power prices or pollution. The only way to ensure that action on climate change is actually taken and is seriously taken is by electing a Labor government. We have a very strong track record on acting on climate change, and we understand the dire need to act. Australians deserve a Shorten Labor government that will take that action and reduce carbon pollution in line with our 45 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. And of course Labor will invest in a renewable energy future which will indeed lower our power prices and secure clean jobs—and the focus should indeed be on lowering those power prices. That is what people are calling out for: action. We'll drive new investment in renewable energy generation and storage and we'll transform Australia's energy supply systems, delivering more renewables and cheaper power for all Australians. The time to act is now. It is very, very urgent, and the calls are being heard right across the country. We saw thousands of young people out there demanding some action. Well, it's only Labor that's listening and only a Shorten Labor government that will take action on climate change. 15:53 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein When I was elected to this federal parliament and had the privilege of representing a forward-looking, modern liberal community like the good people of Goldstein, they elected me because they believe in having a balanced approach to leading this country. Yes, they want leadership. They want economic leadership. They want to be able to create jobs and opportunity for Australians for the next generation, to steward the economy so that those who inherit it get something better than we inherited. They want social stewardship. They want cohesion and social stability. They want a meritocratic society where there's social mobility. They also want environmental leadership. They want environmental stewardship. They want their children to inherit a cleaner, healthier planet than the one they received. That in the end is the vision and the objective of this government, because we want to provide—and are providing—the leadership that this country needs in order to deliver the sustainable future for future generations. You heard it from the minister right at the start, when she talked about the consequences of what our opponents are advocating versus what we are advocating. What we're advocating is sustainable, lowest-cost emissions reduction. Modelling of Labor Party policy has been done whereby it's going to cost $120 per tonne of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions reduction and abatement. The coalition's able to deliver it for between $11 and $12. Yes, all right; that's more efficient—and it is. But, more critically, it means that we can do more with less. We can cut more greenhouse gas emissions more cheaply than the opposition can. At the heart of what we are seeking to do is an agenda based on innovation and growth, for every Australian—while the only pathway our political opponents are seeking to advocate is one built on taxes and decline. Our plan is comprehensive. We are not just looking at the one-third of emissions that come from stationary energy, though that's a critical part of the discussion. We are looking at what we can do to deploy renewables so we can provide stability, reliability and affordability to the energy sector. We are looking at the expansion of the Snowy Hydro project to take in Snowy Hydro 2.0. There has been an incredible amount of forward investment in solar PV cells and we are also getting more thermal solar plants established in South Australia. But, more critically, we are looking at what we can do to develop the assets we have in this country to be able to create more renewable and sustain energy for Australia and the world. In particular, I reference the project in the Latrobe Valley around hydrogen—and there is also a project around lithium and being able to use batteries. But, more critically, we are looking at how we can be more efficient, because we do not want to waste a single drop of energy that sits within the grid in the marketplace to be able to deliver the energy that people need and to find ways to deal with reducing the demand so that companies are more efficient and reduce their environmental footprint, their emissions footprint and, of course, their cost footprint as well. But, critically, we are also looking at the two-thirds of emissions that come from areas outside of stationary energy. We are looking at what we can do to be able to drive change in land use and agriculture, in transportable energy and in making sure we can reduce every aspect of the environmental footprint that sits at the heart of our economy. That's what leadership is. It's not just about going down one rabbit hole and thinking you're able to deliver a solution to the Australian people without any sense of proportionality or understanding of the impact that it will have. It is about recognising that we as a country have a responsibility to take lots of measures that work with the Australian population and recognise that we have to take the whole country forward together. We can't have a situation where pensioners can't afford to heat their homes in winter and cool their homes in summer. We have to have reliable energy, sustainable energy and affordable energy as well. And considering what this government has achieved—we have the lowest emissions in 28 years despite 27 years of sustained and continuous economic growth—that balanced framework is working. We see the future and the opportunity of renewables to be able to drive the transition for our economy and our energy market. We see the potential of reducing emissions in the non-energy sector. We see the jobs and opportunity that will help build this country's growth. We Liberals know that the future is going to be awesome. 15:58 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman I rise to speak on the disaster that is this government's climate change policy. While the rest of the world—including those in the electorate of Wentworth—has accepted that we are experiencing a climate emergency, it is clear that this is not a priority for the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. Those who sit opposite are collectively burying their heads in the sand with no desire or political courage to start to repair the damage that global warming is inflicting on our planet. Recently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a multinational panel comprising the world's top climate and environmental scientists, released a report on the impacts of global warming. The report calls for drastic action to reverse global warming. It warns of current and further damage to coral reefs and warns that there will be more extreme hot days and more extreme droughts. The IPCC also warns of the consequences of climate related risks to our health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security and, of course, economic growth. This change will disproportionately affect people living in the developing world and the Pacific. The IPCC is not some radical body. International bodies like the IPCC are, by their nature, more likely to be conservative because of the consensus required from a vastly diverse membership—and still the warnings are stark. The earth is already too hot, and urgent action is required now if we are going to even begin to mitigate the already devastating effects of climate change. And what was our government's response? It was to dismiss it entirely. Climate change denial and dismissal, which the government is indulging in, is a convenient front to mask their completely ideological refusal to deal with, let alone lead, the climate emergency. Unlike those who sit opposite, my electorate of Batman is bursting with a community of activists who dedicate their time to acting on the climate emergency, including the young schoolchildren who came to see me whilst on climate strike. That's why I am so proud that Labor has started us on this journey with policies that fit the bill: subsidised solar batteries for 100,000 homes; neighbourhood renewable programs that will assist renters and social housing residents to access renewable energy; a just transition authority, a vital part of the social infrastructure we need to assist families affected by the change; and a $10 million retraining fund for workers in the coal-fired power sector, because we need to transition away from coal based energy but we can't leave those workers in the lurch. A Shorten Labor government will make taking action on climate change a priority. It is our promise to future generations. Australians deserve a Shorten Labor government that will take action on climate and reduce carbon pollution in line with our 45 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030 and our target of net zero emissions by 2050. Of course, these policies are not all we will do to ensure that we start cooling the planet. The member for Port Adelaide and the Leader of the Opposition have made that clear. My community, like me, are concerned about new coalmines. They are concerned about the rising cost of electricity, which can be contained with large-scale investment in renewables. I note the report in the media this week that quotes the energy consultants Green Energy Markets. They say that the current rate of installation means we are on track to see renewables provide almost 80 per cent of the energy market by 2030 and that renewables are now cheaper to build and run than any other form of new-build power over a 40-year life span. But that is not enough. Despite the dire warnings from the IPCC and others, I stand committed to the cause of hope, which is made possible by climate action: hope for a just world, a fair world and a sustainable planet and in the reshaping of our economies to meet its challenges. We know that the way we produce cars, our homes, energy, food and all of our systems of production, distribution and exchange need to change to meet the climate threat. It's sometimes only once in a generation that a great moment in time opens itself out just enough so that the organised movement of working people can unfurl a banner for structural societal change and can pin the brightness of its cause to its chest and thunder on through. We have reached the point of lethal stakes and dire opportunity. The planet is burning; the sea levels are rising. We can veer towards change at the greatest speed or permit this government's alternative of inaction that is as inept and incapable as it is unconscionable. Let me end with what I read in the newspaper this morning, which my colleague before quoted. This is from the wonderful David Attenborough: Leaders of the world, you must lead. The continuation of our civilisations and the natural world upon which we depend is in your hands. 16:03 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to speak on this very important issue and to point out to the House that the coalition government has delivered in spades and we are not getting any credit. I will outline some of the things that we have done. We beat the Kyoto 1 emissions target by 128 million tonnes. We beat the second target by 249 million tonnes of reduction in CO2. On the Energy Security Board's figures—I haven't dreamt these up; this is the body responsible for guaranteeing our energy—we are going to increase wind and solar by 250 per cent by 2021. That's going from 17.5 terrawatt hours of renewable energy to 44.4 terrawatt hours of renewable energy. We are going to meet our Paris target of a 26 to 28 per cent reduction in CO2, which is below 2005 levels. We are going to reduce our intensity of CO2 per individual by 50 per cent. That is an incredible efficiency gain. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has put $5.9 billion into investments, which has triggered $20 billion of investments in renewables. We are the No. 1 rooftop solar nation in the world. No-one has greater penetration of rooftop solar than Australia. We are kicking goals all over the place. We will get to 23½ per cent of our energy from renewables by 2020. What do the people on the other side do? They dream up pink batts and 'cash for clunkers'. They want to shut down mining and forestry. They want to stop cattle farming and cut the ruminant herd. All they want to do is put us back in the Dark Ages. People have to realise that the modern industrial world relies on oodles of energy, a lot of it in the static built environment. People take for granted this magnificent building we're sitting in, the car you're driving in—the energy isn't in the petrol or the battery; it is in the actual building or the car. People focus on the last bit of energy that you used. The whole modern industrial world needs bucketloads of energy. Until the efficiency of solar and wind increases, 20 or 30 per cent of efficiency means you have to build five or three times the amount of nameplate capacity of solar and wind. Then you have to have a baseload power system behind it, because it runs only when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. By its very nature it is incredibly inefficient. I'm all for promoting renewables, but they have to do it on their own steam. We can't keep subsidising them. If we give them a legislated guaranteed market—20 per cent or whatever target we set—that means, by law, the retailers have to buy from an intermittent energy producer, which destroys the efficiency of the baseload system. If they go down the track that they are promoting, we won't have a baseload system. Then we will be back to like we were in the 1950s and 1940s, when you had energy rationing and little towns had diesel generators, like they had to do in Tasmania. They talk about Tasmania being the battery for the nation, because they have so much hydro, but it didn't work when they had a drought and ran out of water. There are a lot of practical things that they are not taking into account, but by the same token we are kicking goals. We have so much abatement going on. Our Emissions Reduction Fund has abated 190 million tonnes of CO2. The last couple of auctions were $12, $13 or $14 per tonne of CO2, as opposed to $150 for a carbon tax abatement. The Emissions Reduction Fund means farmers are doing things. Our forestry industry abatement from actively managed forestry estate, which is what we do in Australia, is 23 per cent more. People confuse forestry with deforestation. Australia has the best-managed forestry in the world, yet the other side is trying to shut down forestry. We provide black coal, which is much more efficient than brown coal, to other countries and to Asia. We provide steel, energy and liquid natural gas for the rest of the world. There are 25 million of us and we produce only 1.3 per cent of the world's CO2, but we are producing energy, steel, wood and other stuff for the rest of the world. (Time expired) 16:08 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh It gives me great pleasure to get up and talk about this particular topic, because this issue is urgent not just for our nation but for the world. When I hear the member for Lyne say that we want to take people back to the Dark Ages, I have to tell you that we will be in the Dark Ages unless we take action very soon to protect this Earth from the drastic changes that are taking place in our climate. This government's inaction is not just embarrassing but dangerous to this world and to our environment. We've seen this government change their prime ministers, spouting a need for new direction, but in reality there has been no new direction. The Prime Minister, just like all the previous Liberal prime ministers, has failed Australians. The Liberals continue to fail Australians every single day they refuse to not only accept but also act upon the overwhelming science that tells us that this planet is dying and that we are killing this planet. I heard members opposite say that we need sustainable and affordable energy, that we need to continue down a slow and 'take it easy' path and that we need to keep on using coal. I've got to say that, in the 5½ years that this government has been in power, we've seen energy prices rise 70 per cent and we've seen no clear policy on renewables and energy—absolutely none. If you were an investor in renewables, why on earth would you invest in Australia when you have a government that is divided on this topic and you have people who don't believe in climate change and believe that we should continue burning coal? What we need is more renewables. We need to set targets—and we have a target that will create jobs and investment in renewables instead of having some of our best brains in renewables go overseas. The Prime Minister and this government need to get with the program. They have to stop being dinosaurs from the last century and take real steps to reduce Australia's carbon emissions and to invest in renewable energy. Many have quoted David Attenborough, who has a seat at the two-week UN climate conference being held in Poland. He said to the leaders of this world: The continuation of our civilisations, and the natural world upon which we depend, is in your hands. The people in this place are leaders. They have a duty to this world and the next generation not of Australians but of the human race. I for one do not want to have my grandchildren and great-grandchildren say that I was here in this place and did nothing about the terrible state of the world. We as leaders in this place have an absolute duty to either leave this place in a better condition or try to maintain it, and that is not happening with this government. The Prime Minister walked in here with a hunk of coal and was so proud of it. That is a disgrace in today's world where we have all the science about climate change, about how it's destroying the world and about how we have to go towards renewables. We had the Prime Minister, when he was the Treasurer, come in with a hunk of coal and be so proud. As an MP and an Australian I'm absolutely embarrassed by that and that that is the message we're sending to our nation and the rest of the world. Children were protesting last week about climate change, the world and the environment, but they were really protesting about leadership. They want leadership on this issue and investment in renewables because they want a future. It is their future. It's not the Prime Minister's future or ours. Our generation won't be here in a few more years. It's the future of those children and their kids, so they have every right to protest and say to the government and the people responsible, 'What are you doing about fixing the planet and the terrible climate change that is taking place that will destroy the earth in years to come?' As I said, we've been bestowed the honour to be in this parliament. We have been given the opportunity and privilege, which so few have, to leave this place in a better condition than we found it. I'm ashamed of being in pretty much the only advanced economy where greenhouse gases are rising rather than coming down. What we're seeing is absolutely terrible. We need to act on it now. I know that a Bill Shorten Labor government will take real action on climate change and reduce carbon emissions by 45 per cent. 16:13 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I've been listening very carefully to the words of opposition members here today on the MPI. They are trying to perpetrate scaremongering in this debate about climate policies. With the opposition it's always important, especially in recent years, to compare their words with their actions and to compare their claims with actual facts. They talked down Australia and its achievements. It's worth remembering that, despite some hyperpartisan lines we've just been listening to, Australia has the following track record. Australia and its government are committed to global agreement making and to reducing carbon emissions. Australia did meet its Kyoto 1 targets. In fact, we beat those targets and smashed those targets by 128 million tonnes. Australia is about to meet its targets under Kyoto 2. We're on track to beat those targets and smash those targets by almost 300 million tonnes. Australia is on track to meet its targets under Paris. Those opposite talk Australia down, but Australia measures and reports on its progress. We see in those reports that, in terms of our target of reducing emissions by 26 to 28 per cent per capita, we have already achieved 12 per cent of that. So 12 per cent out of the 26 per cent to 28 per cent has already been achieved—right now, today. And right now, today, Australia has the lowest level of emissions per capita in 28 years. Those opposite have just been making the claim that there aren't policies in place to achieve further reductions, but of course that's entirely untrue. We have a suite of policies. The minister listed many of them in her speech just before, including, most notably, the Emissions Reduction Fund, which is already achieving significant emissions reductions and will be delivering increasingly larger reductions in future years as the projects it funds increasingly come online. I want to pick up just a couple of the comments that were made by the member for Goldstein just before, particularly around achieving balanced policies that achieve more and achieve more efficiently. If you conduct a quick compare and contrast between Liberal and Labor policies here, the Liberal policy, the ERF, achieves reductions in emissions up to one one-hundredth of the cost of what Labor policies, like the carbon tax, cost to achieve the same thing. So Labor's approach involves big new taxes and big imposts on households and businesses, whereas Liberal policies can achieve exactly the same results at up to one one-hundredth the cost and, obviously, without increasing taxes. The fact is that 2017, this past year, under current government policies, was the best year on record for Australia when it comes to investment in renewables. It was a record year for renewables. That will be the legacy of this government and this parliament. This government has announced the biggest-ever project for renewables in the Southern Hemisphere, namely Snowy 2.0. That will be able to power up to half a million homes. There you have it: a commitment to world-leading infrastructure. That will be the legacy of this government and this parliament, as will be the billion trees initiative that was announced just last month by the government. Let's not forget that there has never been a government in Australia's history that has invested as much in the preservation and custodianship of our greatest environmental asset, the Great Barrier Reef. I agree with some of the minister's earlier comments, as well as comments made by the member for Goldstein about leadership. I want to tell you a story about my first election campaign in 2016, because I was the only candidate in Brisbane who fought for and secured commitments and funding for significant environmental priorities. There was a Labor candidate and there was a Greens candidate, but all they amounted to was posturing hot air and words, just like what we've been seeing in some of the contributions from those opposite here today. Actions and delivery are what counts, not words. Leadership and custodianship are what matters and what this government is delivering—not posture and words like we're seeing from those opposite. A number of those opposite have tried to somehow buy into the vibe about the protests against coalmines and the student protests that were held around Australia last week. The member for Batman specifically noted that many of those were protests against coalmines. I have some news for those opposite about the protests we saw in Brisbane. Those protests were significantly directed at Labor. They were significantly directed at the Labor state government at that parliament. Pictures of that event show signs saying, 'Stop Labor's Adani mine' and 'Stop Labor's mine'. BUSINESS 44 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 44 16:18 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 In accordance with standing order 133(b), I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved by the honourable member for Grayndler on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with standing orders. No further debate is allowed. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the honourable member for Grayndler be agreed to.

The House divided. [16:23]
The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith

 73 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Banks, J Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM 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 Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Phelps, KL 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 72 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 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'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC 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

The requirements for an absolute majority not having been satisfied, the motion was not carried.

 BILLS 45 BILLS Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Promoting Sustainable Welfare) Bill 2018 45 Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2018 45

Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2018

Returned from Senate 45 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 45

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

Consideration of Senate Message 45 First Reading 46 COMMITTEES 46 COMMITTEES Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights 46 Report 46 16:32 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: Report 13 of 2018. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 by leave—Of the new bills examined in chapter 1 of this report, six have been assessed as not raising human rights concerns as they promote, permissibly limit or do not engage human rights. The committee has also requested further information in relation to two instruments. Chapter 2 of the report contains the committee's concluded examination of a number of pieces of legislation. The committee's scrutiny reports inform the deliberations of parliament by providing a technical examination of the compatibility of legislation of Australia's obligations under international human rights law. As I have noted on previous occasions, committee members performing this technical scrutiny function are not bound by the contents or conclusions of scrutiny committee reports and may have different views in relation to the policy merits of the legislation. The reports also play an important function by engaging in dialogue with legislation proponents and questions of human rights compatibility. To that end, the statements of compatibility accompanying legislation and the minister's responses to the committee's inquiries are essential for the committee in undertaking its scrutiny function. Whilst many legislation proponents engage diligently in scrutiny dialogue process, as outlined in the committee's report, there is scope for improvement in some cases. In the committee's consideration of recent legislation, there have been some cases where a lack of sufficient information from the legislative proponent has meant that the committee is unable to conclude that a particular measure or measures are compatible with human rights. I encourage legislation proponents to consider the committee's previous reports when preparing statements of compatibility and responses to the committee's inquiries. Over the past year, the committee has examined a considerable volume of legislation—over 230 bills and over 1,700 instruments—for compatibility with human rights. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow committee members for their engagement throughout the year. A number of bills scheduled for debate this week have been considered by this committee in the current report or in our recent reports, including in relation to: telecommunications (assistance and access); migration (relating to the character test and also the validation of port appointments); social services (promoting sustainable welfare); and home affairs (miscellaneous measures). I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's latest scrutiny report—its last of 2018—to better inform their consideration of proposed legislation. With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 13 of 2018 to the chamber. BILLS 46 BILLS Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 46

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

Second Reading 46 16:36 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins Under this government, we are also making good progress on closing the gender pay gap. It was 17.2 per cent when we took office in 2013, and it is now at a record low of 14.5 per cent, although we know that there is still more work to be done. Women must be safe in their homes, online, in their community and at work, and this bill will assist to make that a reality. I'd like to thank those people who are working hard on the front line, helping to provide the housing, the counselling and the comfort that is needed to those families who are experiencing family or domestic violence. To all of those work colleagues who are also caring for those people experiencing family or domestic violence: we thank you too. We must, as a community, be absolutely united. We must be united in sending a very clear message: family and domestic violence is unacceptable anywhere, any time. This bill will provide important workplace protections to employees experiencing such violence, and I urge all members to support extending this important safety net entitlement to all workers under the Fair Work Act. The SPEAKER 00APG 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 immediate question before the House is that the amendment moved by the member for Gorton be agreed to.

The House divided. [16:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 69 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 76 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) 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 McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Phelps, KL Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

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

Consideration in Detail 48 16:48 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne by leave—I move amendments (1) to (11) as circulated in my name together: The amendments were unavailable at the time of publishing. These amendments do a number of different, important things to improve this bill, but I move them together, as I anticipate that most of them won't have the support of the House. As I said in my speech during the second reading debate, there are a number of ways in which this bill could be improved, most notably by changing the leave from unpaid to paid. We've advocated for that for some time. The amendments that I move here do a number of things, though, that aren't directly related to that. Amendments (1) to (3) will change five days of unpaid leave to 10 days of unpaid leave. We submit that 10 days paid leave would be the much better approach, but, failing that, 10 days unpaid leave would make a significant difference to a number of women. It's predominantly women who are needing to take this leave. It's generally recognised that 10 days leave is an acceptable standard and, when compared to the other types of leave that are offered to people and that people are entitled to, 10 days is certainly something that would make a difference. In the context where it can take a period of time to deal with the difficulties of an abusive relationship and to leave it, certainly the message that we've got very loudly and clearly from the sector is that 10 days is the appropriate period of time. Amendments (4), (7) and (8) expand the definition of the relationship that an employee can have to someone in order to be able to claim this leave so that it includes a close relative of the employee. That is defined to include a member of their immediate family or someone to whom they are related according to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander kinship rules or relationships that are accepted within their community to be related to them. This is an important principle as well. With other forms of leave, over time within the industrial system there's been an expansion of, say, sick leave provisions, or what used to be called sick leave provisions, so that, when someone else in your immediate family is sick, you can take that leave, and some of that's been expanded into what is sometimes called carers leave. That's been its genesis and that's how it's developed over time. It makes sense here that, if someone is able to take leave because they have experienced family or domestic violence themselves, they should also be able to take leave if there's someone in their immediate family who's experiencing it and they're taking leave to support them. That's going to become crucial when, for example, you're perhaps dealing with things like attending court or attending services where the support of someone would be crucial. As we know, we're dealing with people who are at a very difficult and vulnerable stage, and having that support to exit an abusive relationship may make all the difference. We're not talking about granting unlimited periods of leave. There would still need to be some connection, but making it available to someone who's not just you but who's in your immediate circle, as defined by these amendments, would also make sense. Amendments (5) and (6) are also very important. If the bill passes in its unamended form, there will be a requirement that, for the employee to access unpaid leave, it would be impractical for them to do what they need to do outside of work hours. That shouldn't be the test. The test shouldn't be one of impracticality. The test should be: what is best going to allow someone to exit an abusive situation? It's a high hurdle to jump and it begs the question about how that's going to be tested and whether people are going to be put to the test of demonstrating that, in some sense, there is that impracticality in their situation. That ought not to be something that someone who's in this situation has to demonstrate. They will be facing enough burdens as it is. Given that the purpose of this bill is to assist people, especially women, to exit abusive situations, then there should not be the additional requirement of impracticality; it should all be directed towards that. Amendments (9) to (11) extend the confidentiality requirements to third parties so that, for example, if the employee who's taking leave discloses the information to someone in payroll, that person can't disclose the information to someone else. It adds civil remedy provisions should there be that question of breach of confidentiality, and we think that's important in this context as well, given that, to access this leave, there may be a requirement to tell various people about something that's an incredibly sensitive situation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 Do you need more time? Mr BANDT M3C Yes. In a context where someone's talking about something that is, by definition, intimately personal, they may be sharing information with others, and obviously the employer needs to go through certain internal processes in order to grant this leave. So it may be that the spread of people to whom this information is disclosed will, of necessity, grow, and there should be some confidentiality protections. Lastly, with respect to amendment (10), this is an important amendment because this will allow modern awards and enterprise agreements to include terms relating to evidence requirements for the unpaid leave that's granted here. This is important because, as I've said, the evidentiary requirements here are going to be critical to making sure that someone feels comfortable about accessing this leave, and they may make a difference to whether or not they choose to access it, depending on who they have to tell about it. There's also going to be the question of what standard has to be met in order to access it. That is something that ought to be able to be looked at more closely by the Fair Work Commission or by parties during their enterprise agreement negotiations, so expressly permitting the evidentiary requirements to be in the modern awards or enterprise agreements would be something that would make sense. I commend these amendments to the House. 16:55 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for Melbourne for his speech, and I appreciate that he is genuinely committed to ensuring that there is an appropriate level of support for victims of domestic violence. However, I remind him and the House that the Fair Work Commission undertook an exhaustive process to strike the right balance in setting a new minimum entitlement for family and domestic violence leave, particularly around what type of leave should be available to victims. It was considered in very extensive detail by the commission. Between October 2014 and July 2018, the commission considered 68 written submissions from 27 parties, received over 2,000 pages of documentation, heard evidence from 26 witnesses and held over 11 days of hearings. Submissions were called and hearings were convened for every step in the process, and unions, employers and community groups all actively engaged in the commission's process. After carefully weighing up all of the evidence, the commission came to a very clear determination, and 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. It said: The ACTU has not provided a satisfactory explanation as to how it arrived at ten days and the evidence does not support a finding that ten days paid leave is necessary. The government respects the integrity of the fair and balanced process by the Fair Work Commission in undertaking its decision, and this, of course, was also highlighted in the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee in its report on the bill, which acknowledged the considerable issues that were looked into by the Fair Work Commission and noted: The committee did not receive evidence which would challenge the basis of the FWC's decision. The bill will provide for five days unpaid leave, and it is the right step to take now. This bill will help protect women's job security when they need to take time off to deal with matters that can sometimes only be done in business hours—things like accessing police and related services or relocating to a safe residence. I just want to touch on the other elements that the member spoke about. The entitlement in the bill matches the entitlement determined to be appropriate by the commission, which is for the leave to be available for an employee who is experiencing family and domestic violence themselves, rather than a close relative of the employee as has been proposed in the amendment. We believe it's important that the decision of the Fair Work Commission be respected. I also just want to note for the record that nothing in this bill prevents an employee from accessing other types of leave, such as carers leave, when the employee needs to provide care for a close relative. I also want to touch on the confidentiality provisions that were just discussed by the member. The confidentiality provisions in the bill mirror those that are in the Fair Work Commission's model clause. These were the result of significant debate and comprehensive submissions by the parties to the Fair Work Commission and represent the accepted final position. If we were to accept any such amendments, they would ultimately undermine that. In addition, the proposed civil penalty would be of no utility because section 44 of the Fair Work Act already contains a civil penalty for such contraventions of the National Employment Standards. Further, the maximum penalty for breaching section 44 is 60 penalty units and is therefore higher than the 30 penalty units proposed by this item. I understand the intent that is behind the amendment, but—can I say—the bill legislates the right of family and domestic violence leave in the National Employment Standards, and it extends this to around eight million workers covered by the Fair Work Act, who will have, as a result of this bill, access to a minimum standard, and their jobs will be protected should they ever find themselves in the terrible circumstances where they need to access this right. It is, of course, a minimum standard, and of course employers who would like to go above the minimum standard are absolutely free to do so. 17:00 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison I don't wish to detain the House unnecessarily, but I would like recorded in the record of proceedings my support for the amendments that have been moved by the member for Melbourne. I think they are very well considered and very wise amendments—in particular, that we should increase the unpaid leave from the current five days to a more realistic 10 days and that we should expand the eligibility to include immediate family. I also support the proposition by the member for Melbourne that we should remove the requirement for someone to be eligible to access this leave only if it's impractical to attend to matters outside work hours. I also support the proposition that there be additional confidentiality provisions. I won't detain the House any longer, other than that I wish my position to be recorded. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Question negatived. 17:01 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton by leave—I move amendments (1) to (18), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Title, page 1 (line 2), omit "unpaid". (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 7), after the definition of family and domestic violence, insert: family and domestic violence leave means: (a) paid family and domestic violence leave; or (b) unpaid family and domestic violence leave. paid family and domestic violence leave means paid family and domestic violence leave to which a national system employee, other than a casual employee, is entitled under subsection 106A(1). (3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 9 and 10), omit "a national system employee is entitled under section 106A", substitute "a national system employee who is a casual employee is entitled under subsection 106A(4)". (4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 13), omit "unpaid". (5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 16), omit "unpaid". (6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 19), omit "unpaid". (7) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 22), omit "Unpaid family", substitute "Family". (8) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 23) to page 4 (line 21), omit section 106A, substitute: 106A Entitlement to family and domestic violence leave Paid family and domestic violence leave—employees other than casual employees (1) An employee, other than a casual employee, is entitled to 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave for each year of service with his or her employer. (2) An employee's entitlement to paid family and domestic violence leave: (a) accrues progressively during a year of service according to the employee's ordinary hours of work; and (b) does not accumulate from year to year. Note: If an employee's employment ends during what would otherwise have been a year of service, the employee accrues paid family and domestic violence leave up to when the employment ends. (3) An employee may take paid family and domestic violence leave as: (a) a single continuous 10 day period; or (b) separate periods of one or more days each; or (c) any separate periods to which the employee and the employer agree, including periods of less than one day. Unpaid family and domestic violence leave—casual employees (4) A casual employee is entitled to 5 days of unpaid family and domestic violence leave in a 12 month period. (5) An employee's entitlement to unpaid family and domestic violence leave: (a) is available in full at the start of each 12 month period of the employee's employment; and (b) does not accumulate from year to year. (6) For the purposes of subsection (5), the start of a casual employee's employment with a particular employer is taken to be the start of the employee's first employment with that employer. (7) An employee may take unpaid family and domestic violence leave as: (a) a single continuous 5 day period; or (b) separate periods of one or more days each; or (c) any separate periods to which the employee and the employer agree, including periods of less than one day. (8) To avoid doubt, subsections (4) to (7) do not prevent the employee and the employer agreeing that the employee may take more than 5 days of unpaid leave to deal with the impact of family and domestic violence. (9) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 22), omit "unpaid". (10) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 23), omit "unpaid". (11) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (after line 11), after section 106B, insert: 106BA Employee not taken to be on paid family and domestic violence leave at certain times Public holidays (1) If the period during which an employee takes paid family and domestic violence leave includes a day or part-day that is a public holiday in the place where the employee is based for work purposes, the employee is taken not to be on paid family and domestic violence leave on that public holiday. Other periods of leave (2) If the period during which an employee takes paid family and domestic violence leave includes a period of any other leave (other than unpaid parental leave) under this Part, or a period of absence from employment under Division 8 (which deals with community service leave), the employee is taken not to be on paid family and domestic violence leave for the period of that other leave or absence. 106BB Payment for paid family and domestic violence leave If, in accordance with this Subdivision, an employee takes a period of paid family and domestic violence leave, the employer must pay the employee at the employee's base rate of pay for the employee's ordinary hours of work in the period. Note: For casual employees, family and domestic violence leave is unpaid. (12) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 23), omit "unpaid". (13) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (line 11), omit "unpaid". (14) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (line 25), omit "an employee", substitute "a casual employee". (15) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (lines 1 to 7), omit subclause 39(2), substitute: (2) For the purposes of this clause, the start of a casual employee's employment with a particular employer is taken to be the start of the employee's first employment with that employer. (16) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (line 9), omit "unpaid". (17) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (line 18), omit "unpaid". (18) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (line 23), omit "unpaid". These amendments seek to achieve the following: firstly, preserve five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave for casual employees as provided for in the bill and, secondly, provide 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave for employees other than casuals. This leave will accrue over a 12-month period but will not accumulate from year to year. Consistently with other paid leave provisions in the National Employment Standards, family and domestic violence leave will be paid at the base rate of pay, and employees will not be taken to be on family and domestic violence leave during public holidays or while taking other forms of leave. I move these amendments because we support the bill, but it doesn't go far enough. We commend the government for introducing proposed legislation that will effectively broaden the application of a decision by the Fair Work Commission, but it does not go far enough. On average, one woman a week is killed as a result of domestic violence. This is a shame; it's a scourge, a national tragedy. We need to attend to it in many ways, in multifaceted ways, and one way is to provide greater support in workplaces. This bill seeks to do that, but the second reading amendment attempted to and now these amendments I move on behalf of the opposition will improve and strengthen the support for women who are subject to violence. Every member of this place would agree that we have to do more to respond to this crisis. We have to do more, and we can do more, and certainly in this public policy area we should do more, and we're not alone in thinking that. It's true to say, as the minister has said, that she seeks to reflect the decision of the commission. The minister also made clear that they considered the submissions made by stakeholders and people who are interested parties to these matters, but those submissions also, in many cases, supported the proposition that, to provide support in workplaces, it's an imperative that it include paid leave. As I say, it's not that this is not already happening in workplaces. For some years now, there have been workplaces where there is paid family and domestic violence leave. I firstly want to pay tribute to the unions that have been bargaining for this right, this provision, with employers in good faith and striking agreements across all industries. That's the first thing I would like to say on behalf of employees in relation to the efforts of unions. The second thing I would like to say that is I pay tribute to those companies who have either agreed to requests or submissions by unions, by their workers, to have such a paid entitlement, a paid right, or initiated having provisions of industrial instruments that provide paid family and domestic violence leave, and there are many. I have mentioned a few before, but I just want to go to that, because they do deserve commendation: Carlton & United Breweries, IKEA, National Australia Bank, Qantas, Telstra, Virgin Australia and many, many more. This year we had the New Zealand government legislate paid family and domestic violence leave, guaranteeing 10 days paid leave for all workers who are experiencing violence and who need to escape. In our own state jurisdictions we have had Queensland and Western Australia offer 10 days paid domestic violence leave to their workforce, while South Australia offers 15 days and Victoria and the ACT offer 20 paid days. Whilst that is a right, and of course it should cover anyone who is subject to violence, it is not a type or form of leave that is going to be used too often. In fact, if we do more to address violence in our society, particularly the violence that women are subjected to, then there will be far less need for such support. But the reality is that every other government gets it. Increasingly, governments are legislating to provide paid leave. New Zealand has just initiated paid leave. Flagship companies have introduced family and domestic violence leave, which is paid leave. It really seems now that the government is resisting what is becoming a clear community expectation: that there is more support for women who are subject to violence. I believe the minister is sincere in her concerns about this issue, but I do believe the government could do better and join Labor and support these amendments, because in doing so we will see a more comprehensive bill that reflects community expectations. I think people want to see governments take a lead. I think it's fair to say on a number of social issues the government—indeed, this place, the parliament—has followed community expectation. I think it's now time to consider that there is a critical mass of support in workplaces for such a change in employment conditions. As I say, flagship companies, state governments and other countries are providing family and domestic violence paid leave. I think we should be doing the same here. For that reason, Labor certainly wants the government to reconsider its position. I say to the crossbench: I think that you have a role here too. Given the state of the parliament and the composition of the parliament, there is a great opportunity here to provide genuine support. Whilst this is a form of material support for women subject to violence, it is something else too. Institutionalising this form of support to women in workplaces also sends a message to those women that they should not feel the stigma that women often do feel when they are subject to such violence. Sure, this is a form of material support, but it does send a message that they should not feel so ashamed that they feel unable to speak out and seek support in their workplace or elsewhere. I do believe that if the government were to accede to these amendments we would have a more comprehensive form of support, it would reflect increasingly what's happening in workplaces anyway and it would show that the government takes this issue seriously. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 The amendments are not within the subject of the bill or the title of the bill and, therefore, are out of order. Mr Burke DYW A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I simply ask you to review the ruling you've just given. I refer to both the standing orders and Practice. I also go to the gravity of the decision. I respect that you've taken it initially on advice, but you need to bear in mind that the impact of this ruling will be to prevent the House deliberating on the issue at all. That will be the impact. First of all, I refer you to standing order 150. Standing order 150(a) states: An amendment may be moved to any part of a bill, if the amendment is within the title or relevant to the subject matter of the bill and conforms to the standing orders. You've made the ruling on the basis that the amendments are not within the title of the bill. That's true. The title of the bill deals only with unpaid domestic violence leave. But the standing orders are quite specific—either 'within the title or relevant to the subject matter of the bill'. While these amendments are not within the title of the bill, there is no doubt at all that they are relevant to the subject matter of the bill. Everything that these amendments do is within the subject matter of the bill itself—dealing with domestic violence leave. The amendments deal with the exact same clauses of the act for workers who are in the exact same catastrophic circumstances. The circumstances that these amendments deal with are identical to the circumstances that the government's bill deals with. They deal with the same clauses of the principal act but do so in a different way. If the only thing within the standing orders were that an amendment has to be within the title of the bill, I would not be raising a point of order. I simply suggest that the ruling you've made makes the words 'or relevant to the subject matter of the bill' irrelevant, and the ruling should not make some standing orders irrelevant. Those words are not only within the standing orders; they are repeated verbatim on page 376 of the Practice. I simply ask that you allow the House to deal with the issue. I respect absolutely that these amendments are beyond the part of the standing orders that says that an amendment can only be within the title of the bill, but that is not the only thing that the standing orders say. They specifically say 'or relevant to the subject matter of the bill'. I suggest that it is impossible to argue that these amendments do not directly deal with the subject matter of the bill that is before the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. Yes, I did take that under advice. It is saying that it is not within the subject of the bill or the title of the bill. I note that I gave the shadow minister 10 minutes to speak, and that's all on record. I think we should just put the question now that the bill be agreed to. Mr Burke DYW A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I'm not pretending for a minute that I am supremely confident as to what the outcome of the vote will be on these amendments, but I will say that, while advice from the clerks will always be sought, ultimately it is the responsibility of the chair to make the final decision. I suggest that there is no reading of what's in front of us that says it is not relevant to the subject matter. We have a bill about domestic violence leave. We have an amendment about domestic violence leave. We have a bill that goes to specific sections of the Fair Work Act. We have an amendment that goes to the exact same sections of the Fair Work Act. We have a statement in standing orders that says that, if it's relevant to the subject matter, it's allowed. We have an identical statement in Practice that says that, if it's relevant to the subject matter, it's allowed. I'm simply asking: allow the House to vote on the issue. Leave was given by the government for these amendments to be moved together, and, rather than blowing the issue up further, I think the sensible path forward is simply to accept that, while these amendments are not within the title of the bill, they are certainly relevant to the subject matter of the bill. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the principle of what you've said on advice from the Clerk, which is that an amendment needs to be relevant to the actual bill, is the correct ruling under section 150 of the standing orders. The danger of adopting the procedure that the Manager of Opposition Business has proposed, which is basically saying, 'Well, let's have a vote anyway and see how it goes,' is that it sets a very dangerous precedent because it means that standing order 150 is not being abided by. The bill is about paid leave. The amendments are about unpaid leave. It's quite a different— Ms O'Dwyer LKU The bill's about unpaid leave. Mr Pyne 9V5 The bill is about unpaid leave, and their amendments are about paid leave. It's quite a different matter, and, as the Clerk has indicated, that is quite outside the standing orders as we understand them to be. Allowing a vote on this would be a dangerous precedent, and I put it to you that the opposition will take the opportunity to use this on every occasion that they can, turn back to this precedent and say, 'It was allowed on the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill, so it should be allowed on this bill as well.' Mr Burke DYW Should we make a point of order again? The SPEAKER 00APG No. I hear the Manager of Opposition Business asking if he should make the points of order again. It will assist the House to know I've been watching this intently in my office, so there's no need to do that unless you think you can do it better a second time. I've heard what the Deputy Speaker has said and the basis on which he said it. I've heard the member for Gorton's contribution. I heard the ruling, and I've heard your discussion on why you think that ruling is wrong. I do have to say that, as I said, members need to know I've focused on this intently as it has been occurring, and I believe the ruling that was made is absolutely correct. I need to say that in all candour, because what the amendments seek to do is actually to completely reverse the intent of the bill from unpaid to paid. The long title of the bill is very specific: it refers to 'unpaid'. So that ruling that has been given hasn't been given on a whim. Certainly, having considered the matter, I don't have any doubt that the ruling is right. I think that, when you have an amendment that simply reverses the intent not just of the short title but of the long title and substitutes the complete opposite of what the bill is about, that is not in order. I don't think I can put it any more clearly than that. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 54 17:19 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 54

Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

Second Reading 54 17:20 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs This bill is an amendment to the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018, the FITS Act, and the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Act 2018, the EFI Act, which both passed through the parliament in June 2018. The FITS Act creates a registration scheme for persons undertaking certain activities on behalf of foreign government related entities, foreign political organisations and foreign government related individuals. The EFI Act, which deals with related and overlapping subject matter, stipulates that persons who have existing arrangements once the registration scheme commences have a six-month grace period until they are expected to comply. The government has announced that the registration scheme is due to come into effect on 10 December 2018—in six days. The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 makes two major changes to these existing arrangements. First, it amends the EFI Act to shorten the grace period for compliance for those parties with existing arrangements from six months to three months. It also stipulates that, if writs for a federal election are issued within that three-month period, parties will have only 14 days to comply. Secondly, the bill amends the FITS Act to stipulate that past registrations will still be available publicly and searchable on the internet, not just current registrations. Without this change, past affiliations or arrangements with foreign political organisations or foreign government related individuals would disappear from public view once they expired. The first change is designed to account for the expected timing of the upcoming federal election, whenever that may be. With the scheme coming into effect on 10 December 2018, if the six-month grace period were not shortened, registration obligations would not come into effect until June 2019—after the next election. With the change proposed, they would come into effect in March 2019. The second change appears to be an oversight by the government in the original bill, which is regrettable. It is clearly in the public interest for past associations with foreign political organisations or foreign government related entities to be on the public record. These amendments should perhaps be a sign to the government that taking the time to make good law when it comes to national security is a good thing—a lesson that they have apparently not learned. Although not ideal, the committee process for both the Foreign Interference Transparency Scheme Act 2018 and the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Act 2018 were cooperative and productive. The committee report on the latter bill contained more than 60 recommendations—the most for any bill that had ever been before the committee. It shows, perhaps, the magnitude and difficulty of the work that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security does on a regular basis. Labor supports this bill as this is an extension of our support for the original bill. We supported the original Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 and the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Act 2018 on the basis that foreign interference in our political system, if it is malign, is unacceptable and, even if it is benign, should nevertheless be transparent. Both the changes in this short bill are technical rather than substantive. While we regret that these matters were not dealt with in the original legislation, we support these amendments. 17:24 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the shadow minister for his cooperation with getting the bill to this point and for his speech. The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 will ensure that the registration scheme, set up under the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018, will be fully operational in time for the upcoming federal election. It was always intended that historical information about persons registered under the FITS Act should continue to be published after the registration ceases. The bill will ensure that this will occur. It was also always intended that the FITS Act scheme would be fully operational in time for the next election. This bill will make sure of that. The provisions in this bill will better give effect to the FITS Act's underlying purpose, which is to ensure transparency with respect to foreign influence in Australia's government and political processes. The bill will ensure that the public can access information about both past and present instances of foreign influence, registered under the FITS Act, improving transparency for all elections to come. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 55 17:26 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018 55

Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018

Second Reading 55 17:27 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I rise to speak on the Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018 on behalf of the opposition. Labor support this bill. We support this bill because we recognise the need to modernise the legislative framework that governs the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, ASIS, to reflect the changing operational realities in the global environment and the nature of the national security challenges that Australia now faces. Before I go to the content of the bill and the reasons for Labor's support for it, I want to note with approval the way in which this bill has been prepared and now dealt with by the parliament. To begin with, it's clear that, in developing the measures in this bill, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade worked closely with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to develop a workable and well-drafted bill that was suitable for introduction to the parliament. This included the preparation and inclusion in the bill of appropriate safeguards and oversight mechanisms for the use of the new powers. This bill was introduced to the House and then referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on Thursday 29 November, just last week. Because Labor believes that national security is a matter that should always be above politics, we carefully considered the measures in this bill as a matter of priority. Labor members of the intelligence committee worked with their Liberal counterparts to rigorously examine the bill in a very tight time frame to ensure that it was fit for purpose. The committee was able to reach a consensus position that it is fit for purpose. This is how a responsible, constructive and bipartisan approach to national security should operate: in the national interests, rather than for party political advantage. This constructive bipartisanship was possible because the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and ASIS did the necessary work and due diligence to ensure that this bill was fit for purpose before it was introduced. This included early consultation with the opposition. The department did not just serve up an inadequately prepared piece of legislation riddled with problems, in the expectation that the intelligence committee would do the hard work for them by fixing all the problems. This constructive bipartisanship was possible because no attempt was made by ministers in the government to intervene in the intelligence committee's work or to otherwise use political pressure through media announcements. Regrettably, the responsible, constructive and bipartisan approach applied to this bill was not followed by the Minister for Home Affairs in the context of the bill he introduced to deal with the issue of encryption and a range of new powers, called the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill, or assistance and access bill. That bill was introduced to this place and then referred to the intelligence committee in a parlous state, not fit for purpose. The lack of adequate consultation on the bill by the government ensured that many of the numerous serious problems and risks it contained were not even identified, let alone addressed, by the Department of Home Affairs and its minister prior to introduction. These failures by the responsible minister and his department have forced the intelligence committee to undertake the kind of consultation the department and its minister apparently couldn't be bothered with and to embark on the hugely complex task of trying to identify and fix the many, many problems with the assistance and access bill, with only the very limited resources of a parliamentary committee at its disposal. The negative consequences of the inadequate approach to national security legislation adopted in relation to the assistance and access bill were only compounded by attempts by both the Minister for Home Affairs and the Prime Minister to intervene in the committee's work by forcing the committee to accelerate its inquiry and trying to force the legislation through the parliament, regardless of the many risks it may pose to our nation and our community. I will have more to say about the assistance and access bill in coming days and raise it now only by way of contrast to the current bill, which has been handled well. First, some background is helpful to contextualise the proposed amendments that the Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018 makes to the existing legal framework. The Intelligence Services Act has an explicit limitation that ASIS, in performing its functions, must not plan for or undertake activities that involve paramilitary activities, violence against the person, or the use of weapons. In 2004, parliament amended the Intelligence Services Act to permit ASIS staff members and agents to undertake training in, and to engage in the use of, self-defence techniques and weapons for the purpose of protection when undertaking activities outside Australia. This training is subject to ministerial approval. The nature of the 'protection' that an ASIS agent or staff member can be trained to engage in is interpreted with reference to the long-established common law principles of self-defence, but in a significantly narrowed form. These principles require that the force used be the minimum that the staff member or agent perceives is reasonably necessary in the circumstances in order to protect life or to prevent serious injury to themselves or to another person. However, there are currently strict limitations on who may be protected by an ASIS staff member or agent acting in self-defence. The scope is limited to the individual ASIS member or agent themselves, another member or agent of ASIS, or a person from another approved authority who is cooperating with ASIS. This is a narrower scope than those who may otherwise be protected by any other Australian person acting under the common law of self-defence. This means that, should an ASIS staff member or agent engage in the use of a weapon or self-defence technique to protect persons who are not within the limited scope defined by the legislation, their action might be lawful under the common law, but they would nevertheless be in breach of the Intelligence Services Act. This anomalous situation leaves members of ASIS in a difficult legal position should they act in defence of a person who is not in one of the narrow categories listed in the Intelligence Services Act. This bill would amend the Intelligence Services Act to, first, enable the minister to specify additional persons outside Australia who may be protected by an ASIS staff member or agent and, second, provide that an ASIS staff member or agent performing specified activities outside Australia will be able to use reasonable and necessary force in the performance of an ASIS function. Additional persons could include officers from other agencies, such as officers from state and Commonwealth agencies, and from approved foreign agencies; hostages; and other bystanders. The amendments are also intended to address another legal uncertainty that arises because of the inconsistencies between the common law and constraints imposed by the Intelligence Services Act. This second legal uncertainty relates to whether the existing provisions that enable the use of a weapon or self-defence technique for protection also extend to the ability to apply pre-emptive force, or threat of force, to restrain, control or compel a person in a situation where the ASIS member or the agent feels that, if they do not do so, the situation is likely to escalate to a situation where greater force is required. This use of pre-emptive force in this context would be limited to what would constitute reasonable and necessary force, but that could not result in physical harm or injury to the person that might exceed the threshold of actual bodily harm under Australian law. Crucially, the proposed extended powers available to ASIS staff and agents to use weapons, self-defence techniques and reasonable force, will be subject to appropriate oversight. Specifically, ministerial approval is required for an ASIS officer or agent to be provided with a weapon and provided with training in the use of force, and for them to use, or threaten to use, force for the purposes of, or in the course, specified activities. The minister must not give approval unless they have also consulted with the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, the defence minister and any other minister who has responsibility for a matter that is likely to be significantly affected by an act that is to be approved. Approval must be provided in writing to the Director-General of ASIS and must specify any conditions that must be complied with, and, if approved, the kind or class of weapon involved. In addition, the Director-General of ASIS must give a report to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the IGIS, if a weapon or a self-defence technique is used by an ASIS staff member or agent. The report must be given in writing as soon as practicable after the weapon or self-defence technique is used and explain the circumstances under which the use occurred. It is self-evident that an oversight regime such as that conducted by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security can only be truly effective if the inspector-general is notified of occasions which might warrant her oversight and, once notified, she is in a position to look into the circumstances of the use of a weapon or the use of a self-defence technique by an ASIS staff member or agent. This concept of providing for notification to the IGIS is something that we should ensure is used in any situation where the IGIS is given this important oversight role. In that regard, the bill also includes a new oversight mechanism whereby the IGIS must brief the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security regarding the content and effect of ASIS guidelines on matters related to the use of weapons and self-defence techniques if requested by the committee or if the guidelines change. This is intended to provide an additional layer of external scrutiny to the content and scope of guidance to ASIS staff members and agents in order to ensure that such rules governing the use of force remain appropriate. I would reiterate that Labor appreciates the nonpartisan and consultative manner in which this bill has been dealt with. This should provide confidence to the parliament and to the wider community in regard to the additional powers that are conferred on ASIS staff and ASIS agents by this bill. Such an approach is an example of how national security legislation should be pursued. I commend the bill to the House. 17:39 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I want to make a few comments on the Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018 and, in doing so, I say at the outset that I'm not a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and, therefore, I have not been part of the detailed consideration. There are two reasons why I want to make some remarks. I have an interest in national security matters and, of course, there are relatively few bills that come before the House and, therefore, opportunities to consider these things. I do believe it's important to strive for bipartisanship to the greatest extent possible in relation to national security bills. I also have a very longstanding and broad interest in good legislative process. Wearing our hat as legislators is part of our role here. It's nerdy, if you like, but it's true. I think it's really important that good process and proper process is observed in making laws. For both of those reasons, I want to compliment the government on presenting this bill or, to be more accurate, to compliment the member for Curtin, who had stewardship of this bill in her tenure as foreign minister. It is a good example of how the legislative process should work on security matters. There should be a deliberative process, as there has been, and there should be extensive and early consultation, as I understand and as I'm advised there has been, both with the shadow ministers in the opposition and also via the PJCIS. So I think it's fair to say that there has been extremely sensible handling of the bill on the government's part; therefore, Labor could do our job as a responsible opposition, striving for bipartisanship, because the government behaved like adults when Minister Bishop occupied the portfolio in relation to this legislation. As the shadow Attorney-General just did, that can be, should be and must be contrasted with the mess of the encryption laws, which are still playing out this week. On one hand, we had the member for Curtin, when she was Foreign Minister Julie Bishop—as she was known—with a sensible, grown-up process, consulting with parliament and introducing legislation to achieve the objectives, with the appropriate checks and balances on new powers. Of course, for that, the Liberal Party party room rejected her bid for leadership. On the other hand, we have had the Prime Minister's handling of the encryption laws, abandoning proper committee and legislative process, heavying the government members of the committee via press conferences in the last week and picking a deliberate fight with the opposition, or so it looks from the outside. Again I say that I'm not party to the discussions and I have no particular knowledge of where they're at, but to go on TV this week, as one of the government ministers did, and say that Labor are 'friends of paedophiles' and 'friends of terrorists' in relation to a serious national security matter, as if that's somehow going to get the opposition on board, is disgraceful. Of course, in return for the Prime Minister's behaviour, they voted to install him in the leadership over the member for Curtin and her more measured, sensible approach. For any government members who are listening, you do see the difference in approach. When you take a sensible approach, you get a sensible outcome. When you use a sensible legislative process and the committee process, as it is set up to do on serious matters, you get a sensible outcome. We're here and we're supporting the bill; it's agreed. On the other hand, when you deliberately provoke and use a flawed legislative process and abandon the committee process, you end up in a mess. I want to praise the shadow Attorney-General and the Labor members of the PJCIS for their work. We know from the outside that it is one of the hardest committee gigs in the parliament. The committee meets for hours and it meets late at night. There is no higher priority than national security and community safety. Senators McAllister and Wong were involved as well. They are enormous, serious efforts in fixing the government's messes. We heard comment with the previous bill. Actually, we've just had two national security bills go through the chamber with the support of the opposition. The other bill was the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. I had the misfortune of sitting in the chamber in December after the marriage equality vote. While everyone else was out drinking and celebrating, I had to wait to table a committee report, which for some obscure reason had to be done. I watched the Prime Minister introduce the bill, with grand hyperbole and comments about Chinese influence and 'Shanghai Sam' and all sorts of sledging of the opposition, when this was supposed to be a serious bill. As it turned out, the foreign influence bill was completely flawed because the government hadn't followed proper process. It was rushed. For such a serious, once-in-a-generation change, as we were told, they should have used an exposure draft. They should have consulted with the opposition. They should have consulted with the committee before sending the Prime Minister into the House, desperate on Christmas Eve for a bit of political momentum. It's fair to say that the shadow minister is measured in his tone, as is appropriate, given his role. But what I see from the backbench is the government, when they're desperate, when they're in political strife, pressing what is a breaking glass—press national security. It's their favourite and lowest road wedge. It's a political plaything when it suits them, when they're desperate. I'll keep my remarks on the substance of the bill very brief, because I think it's been well covered. It is a measured amendment. We do have a changing security and operational environment for our ASIS officers and it has been a fast-growing agency over the last decade. We ask them to operate in difficult environments that are different from that which had been contemplated perhaps 10 or 20 years ago: hostage situations, difficult negotiations, supporting publicly-known and non-publicly-known military operations. The current laws from 2004 are overly restrictive on governing the use of reasonable force. So it's entirely appropriate that the parliament take seriously their requests to update the legislative framework, to modernise it and to make sure they're protected in their work, in all legal aspects, and able to do their important work. Both elements of the bill are appropriate: firstly, enabling the minister to specify additional persons to be protected by an ASIS staff member or agent and, secondly, clarifying the use of reasonable force—in effect, extending the self-defence provisions to match the common law. The final thing I'll remark upon are the strong and appropriate approval and oversight checks and balances in this bill, which are clearly absent from the encryption bill which has been presented to the House: ministerial approval being required; constraints on the minister's ability to approve without consulting with other key ministers, and senior ministers at that; a requirement for approvals to the Director-General of ASIS to be in writing—no verbal approvals; a requirement that the Director-General of ASIS give a report to the IGIS—again, entirely appropriate; and an entirely new oversight mechanism, with a mandatory report from the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to the PJCIS. They're sensible and strong measures, they're appropriate checks and balances and they're the kinds of things which, to her credit, the member for Curtin introduced as a sensible piece of national security legislation. I'll close my comments by contrasting that—again, I have no knowledge of where the committee is at with this; it's their business—with one of the most disturbing aspects in Minister Dutton's encryption bill, which is a complete lack of oversight and accountability. If you were serious about getting bipartisanship on national security rather than just picking a fight with the opposition so you can get some headlines through the week so it looks like you're doing something or standing for something, it would be unacceptable—and, at the very least, there would be serious concerns raised—to present a bill seeking enormous new powers to decrypt the phones and apps of everyone in Australia with no judicial oversight. The only comparison which you could reasonably draw is the restrictions and checks and balances that apply to telephone interceptions, which require warrants. That's not a very grown-up approach if you're serious about national security. I commend the former foreign minister on her approach and contrast it with the mess that's still playing out this week via the committee, which I do hope will be resolved by the end of the week so we can all go home. 17:47 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I thank the colleagues who have spoken on this important bill, the Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018. The work of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service is undertaken outside of public view. Nevertheless, I can say to the House today that much of ASIS's operational work overseas is necessarily conducted in hazardous environments, including in warlike zones and other high-risk environments. There has been considerable change in the operating environments where ASIS officers are deployed, and the risks and threats have greatly increased since the original passage of the Intelligence Services Act in 2001. The original form of the act limited the ability of ASIS officers to act even in their own self-defence. But, by 2004, drawing on practical experience after the 9/11 attacks, the act was amended to allow ASIS officers, where authorised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to use weapons for self-defence in narrowly defined circumstances. Since the time of these amendments, successive governments have asked ASIS to do more in response to national security priorities and unfolding events and to do so in new places and new circumstances unforeseen in 2001 or 2004. Fifteen years later, it is time to amend the act to allow ASIS to more safely operate in a far more complex and dangerous world. This bill seeks to amend the Intelligence Services Act to enable ASIS to better protect its officers and other persons when operating in hazardous environments overseas through the defined use of force and to better protect Australia's national security interests, especially in counterterrorism operations overseas. There'll be additional oversight mechanisms that come with these new and additional powers to use force under clearly defined conditions. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will need to be satisfied that arrangements are in place to ensure any actions taken by ASIS officers are necessary and reasonable, having regard to the purpose for which the direction is given. While lethal force may already be used in self-defence as a last resort to protect an officer or another protected person from serious harm or death, it's explicitly provided that, in undertaking such an activity, ASIS staff members or agents will not and must not engage in torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, sexual assault or unlawful killings. The amendments before the House underline the continuing importance of the role of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in authorising the use of weapons by ASIS. If this bill is passed, the conduct of a specified activity by ASIS or its agents will require the Minister for Foreign Affairs to consult with the Prime Minister and certain other ministers before authorising such an activity. If this bill becomes law, the independent Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will oversee compliance with the bill to ensure that ASIS's conduct is consistent with the law and with the Australian public's expectation of propriety. A great deal of consultation has gone into the bill to make it the most transparent and effective bill possible. These amendments are not proposed lightly, nor are they excessive or an overreach. They're balanced, proportionate and necessary. To conclude, each day the women and men of ASIS go about their work to protect and advance the Australian national interest. They're often called upon to do so covertly, at considerable personal risk and hazard, and in environments of significant danger. As the world becomes more complex, it is clear that the legislation that governs ASIS operations also needs to evolve to ensure that staff members and the agents who assist them have the appropriate capacity for self-defence, as authorised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 59 17:51 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018, Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2018 59

Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018

Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2018

Second Reading 59 17:52 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I rise to contribute to the cognate debate on the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018 and the Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2018. These bills introduce a range of small cost recovery measures proposed in the 2017-18 budget. There will be a small annual charge for higher education providers and universities to support the cost of administering the Higher Education Loan Program. The bills also amend the Higher Education Support Act to introduce an application fee for higher education providers to offer FEE-HELP loans to Australian students. I also note that the new charges will have to comply with the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines. The government has revised the impact of these charges from $30 million in the 2017-18 budget to $14.1 million over the forward estimates. These are modest charges and go towards the administrative cost of Australia's world-famous income-contingent loan scheme, HELP, the Higher Education Loan Program. Labor will not oppose these bills, because on balance these charges will have a very small impact on the higher education sector, especially in the context of our very positive policies for higher education. But we won't tolerate a situation where these costs, modest though they are, might be passed onto students. We will continue to monitor the operation of the scheme and, if needed, seek future amendments, changes to regulations or assurances from the higher education sector. Even though, overall, this is a small extra impost, we believe that it should be absorbed by the higher education sector, and not flow on to students and thus undermine equity of participation in our higher education system. I also want to acknowledge that a great deal of the anxiety that's been expressed by the university sector in relation to these bills, but much more broadly as well, is in relation to the track record of five years of cuts, chaos and dysfunction from this government. Since the Liberals have come to office, universities have undergone a sustained period of attack with cuts and chaos. Only last week we saw the Minister for Education announce a cut of $134.8 million from the Research Support Program to fund unexplained projects in regional university campuses—unexplained projects that can only look like pork-barrelling without more information than we've been given. A majority of this funding is going towards repairing the damage caused by previous Liberal cuts. So you come in and you cut the funding. There's chaos in the regional university campuses, in particular. We freeze student numbers, worsening the situation there. And then to repair the localised chaos, we take money from research and put it into these regional campuses. It is really not the way to run a higher education system. If the government were serious about regional education it would follow Labor's policy. I do acknowledge that in this period of cuts and uncertainty the sector sees the charges in these bills as unfortunate. I want to assure them that under Labor the university sector will have certainty of funding and a respectful and consultative approach. So many people in the university sector remind me of the promise from the member for Warringah before the 2013 election that universities under a Liberal government would experience a period of benign neglect. I think they'd be praying for benign neglect given what they've, in fact, gone through over the last five years. There has been not benign neglect but malicious intent in a lot of the university changes that we've seen. There have been repeated attempts to cut funding from the university sector. There have been repeated attacks on students, trying to get them to pay more for a university education, restricting access to a university education. It was Labor that led the charge against these cuts in this parliament. The first Liberal education minister of this government, Minister Pyne, tried twice to cut funding. Then last year Minister Birmingham also tried to cut funding from our universities. There were some cuts that we were able to stop and there were some, because they didn't require legislation, that we were not able to stop. We couldn't stop the $2.2 billion in cuts made just before Christmas last year, because the minister was using existing powers in the Higher Education Support Act to reduce funding. This decision means that the government have effectively recapped undergraduate places in our universities and forced students to pay their debts off sooner by lowering the HELP repayment threshold to $45,000. I described this decision then as 'reckless and unfair', and it still is. It has locked thousands of students out of the opportunity of a university education and put enormous pressure on other young people having to repay their debts sooner—often at the same time as they're trying to start a family and buy a house, and when they have many other expenses. Changes like this disproportionately affect women. The ACTU have undertaken analysis that shows that 60 per cent of Australians with a HELP debt and a taxable income are women. So twice as many women are affected as men. We've also learnt from Universities Australia that the cap on places meant that around 10,000 places were not funded this year, in 2018, and we expect that number to continue to increase year upon year. The Mitchell Institute's recent tertiary participation analysis says that because of the government's caps on university places around 235,000 students could miss out on a university place by 2031. At a time of year like this, when so many students are anxiously awaiting their results, having studied hard in year 11 and year 12 hoping to get a place in university, it really does tug the heartstrings to think that over the next decade or so almost a quarter of a million young people who would otherwise have a place in university will miss out if the policies of this government continue. Kids who are prepared to study and work hard, and invest their time and money, through the HELP repayment scheme, in getting a university education, which better equips them for the world of work, will miss out because of policy decisions of this government. The decline in TAFE and apprenticeships is in some ways even worse than this. We've seen an extraordinary failure by this government when it comes to vocational education and training. We know that nine out of 10 jobs created in the future will need a post-secondary school education, either TAFE or university, so we need to increase participation in both universities and our vocational education sector to make sure our young people are prepared for the world of work, which is changing so very quickly. We need to boost participation, not cut it. The Liberals' record in this area is abysmal. If we continue down this path, we will severely jeopardise our future economic growth, undermine the opportunity of individual Australians to meet their full potential and, very importantly, compromise our ability as a nation to compete with the rest of the world using the skills, knowledge, discovery and invention of our people. Consequently, I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that, over five years, the Government has cut billions in funding from Australia's universities and vocational education and training, making it harder for Australians to attain a university or TAFE qualification". Labor has a strong and positive plan for universities. We have committed to return to the demand-driven funding system to lift the caps on undergraduate places. This will see around 200,000 more Australians get a place at university over the next 12 years. We want to see more students who are the first in their family to go to university. I know that around Australia right now there are bright and talented students, many of whom might want a university education, but their opportunity to get that education is not evenly distributed across our towns, cities, suburbs and country areas. It makes no sense to me at all that a young person from the Moreton Bay region in Queensland is about five times less likely to get a university education than someone who lives on the North Shore of Sydney. It is not because brains are unevenly distributed across our country; it is because opportunity is unevenly distributed across our country. We'll change that. Labor, if elected, will invest $174 million over the next decade to support more students from outer suburbs and the country, Indigenous students, students with disabilities and more people who are the first in their family to go to university. Funding will encourage universities to collaborate with TAFEs and not-for-profit and community organisations in areas with low university attendance and graduation rates to deliver mentoring and outreach programs to increase students' desire for a university education and their success once they get to university. We will establish, too, a university future fund so we can upgrade and invest in new university research and teaching facilities, as well as deliver projects that will support our economy and jobs and communities right across Australia. These positive plans will see more than $10 billion in additional funding flow into our universities over the decade. Universities, students and workers in higher education will all be better off under a Labor government. Under our better and fairer funding approach, universities will be more than able to meet the small charges in this bill. I thank Labor senators for their work on the Education and Employment Legislation Committee's inquiry into this bill. I also thank universities, unions, student groups and other stakeholders for their submissions on the bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Butler HWK Yes, I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 18:04 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I rise to support the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018. I note that we are not opposing it, because of the relatively small impact that it will have on the sector, especially in the context of the policies that Labor would like to be able to bring in to properly fund the sector should we win office. I also note that we do have some concerns about how the charges and other aspects of the bill will operate over the longer term. We'll be watching that closely and making sure that the new scheme has no negative impact on students, that these costs aren't—as so many things are—passed through to the consumer, in this case the student, in the form of higher fees or higher charges for services and that ultimately they don't undermine the equity in our university system. I note that Australian students already pay the sixth-highest fees in the OECD for a university education, and we know that, if the Liberals had had their way, they would have already introduced $100,000 university degree fees. It's no wonder that, when I talk to young people and they remark that my generation had the benefit of a free university education, they question the sort of money they could be asked to pay under those opposite. It is hard to imagine that those opposite wanted the full deregulation of student fees, but we were very pleased that they were forced to back down. I note that they kept $2.5 billion of cuts to universities from 2018 onwards, and they have already forced students to start repaying HELP debts when they earn as little as $45,000. That's only $9,000 a year above the minimum wage, so it really isn't giving students very much breathing space to be able to make up for the years of penury while they were studying and then the years of struggling to build those first stages of their career. So I think students already face some pretty big challenges in the pursuit of not only getting a better education for themselves but making an additional contribution to this society and to our economy. I think it's really important in debating this bill that we look at the key differences between Labor's approach to higher education and the Liberals'. We believe that funding education is an investment in our children's future, in our nation's future, and not just a cost burden. I've been interested to read the work of Glenn Withers, a professor of economics at ANU. He points out that the economic evidence is that not only does higher education build the economy's skills and knowledge but it pays for itself many times over. On average, university training in Australia has paid a rate of return of around 14 to 15 per cent, according to analysis of 2006 and 2011 census data. University research has delivered an average rate of return of 25 per cent. They're the sorts of rates of return that, if you've been in business, you'll be envious of. The rates of return for tertiary education far surpass most commercial rates of return, which historically average around 10 per cent, and surpass any hurdle rate for investment, which is typically seven to eight per cent. That's what's sought in formal government investment analysis. So you've got to say that every taxpayer dollar invested in higher education is really working hard, and we're getting a great rate of return. On this side of the House, we believe there should be an even greater participation in higher education in Australia. The decision by the government to effectively put a cap back on undergraduate places in universities is going to smash participation rates—a $2.1 billion cut. Across the country, the Mitchell Institute says it will lead to 235,000 Australians missing out on a university education—and that is just an extraordinary figure—over the next few years. That has a shocking impact on our economy and on our society. The impact will particularly be felt in electorates like mine on the outskirts of Sydney. There is a desire for Western Sydney to be part of an innovation drive, with high-quality, high-skilled jobs. The population requires a skills uplift to be ready for those jobs, yet the Centre for Western Sydney has found that, among young people, the attainment of a bachelor degree is 40 per cent lower than elsewhere in Greater Sydney—10 per cent, compared with nearly 17 per cent. So, we already have significantly fewer people even attempting university, which is not setting us up well for the skills that we need going forward. The freezing of funding to Western Sydney University is not going to help to reduce that gap. Western Sydney University is the key provider of education in the greater west, including the Hawkesbury campus at Richmond, in my electorate. It's in the interests of my community that we see more people go to university. We on this side of the House actively back participation—for a start, by lifting the caps the government has imposed. There are a number of ways we think that the university system needs to be treated differently. Labor is committed to returning to the demand-driven funding system and to ensuring that there are three-year funding agreements. We also want to see more equity and pathway programs, and we've provided for much-needed funding for infrastructure. They are the areas we would like to see change. Labor's positive policies will see around $10 billion in additional funding flowing to universities over the decade. I will now talk in a little more detail about where those different areas will be. Let's talk about participation. I want to see more kids from the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains getting a university degree. We've already announced that $174 million in equity and pathways funding will be available under Labor. That will fund mentoring and pathways for students from areas with low university graduation rates so that more students are encouraged to go to university. In the Hawkesbury part of my electorate, particularly, we have a fabulous uptake of TAFE but we don't do so well on university. We need both of those things. We need young people and older people going to both those pathways so that we can bring together the skills mix that we need for the coming century. It is still a reality that if you're a student on the North Shore of Sydney you are five times more likely to go to university than a student in, let's say, the Moreton Bay area of Queensland. You are also more likely to go to university than if you come from the Hawkesbury or Blue Mountains. We want to change that. The equity funding comes on top of Labor's nearly $10 billion commitment to return to the demand-driven funding system from 2020, which will see around 200,000 more Australians get the opportunity of a university education over the following decade. Only last month or so Labor announced a new $300 million universities future fund that will go towards updating research and teaching facilities at our universities. We've also announced a specific commitment to the Hawkesbury campus in Western Sydney in my electorate of Macquarie. The Hawkesbury campus will receive $20 million to transform it into a global food-security powerhouse, which really helps put the region at the cutting edge of research on hardier crops, nutrition and biosafety. My part of Sydney is really not Sydney; it is peri-urban. We have fabulous agriculture, we have orchards, we have berries, and we have vegetables being grown on the floodplains of the Hawkesbury, so agriculture is really important to the Hawkesbury. The $20 million will establish a new world-class agri-technology centre on our campus. We currently have the most amazing glasshouse that there is in Australia. This funding will help the work being done at that facility. It is a 1,700-square-metre glasshouse, where crops are grown for research. It uses the latest climate control technology. It features things like diffused glass and smart glass coatings that adjust the spectrum, direction and intensity of light, helping researchers to produce the highest possible crop yields with minimal energy, nutrients and water. The investment in this facility, which will enable additional research, will really build on our tradition in the Hawkesbury as an agricultural centre. The Hawkesbury Agricultural College became, 126 years ago, the first agricultural college in New South Wales, and we continue to have that tradition carried through. People outside the area might not realise that the local dairy, beef, lamb, vegetable and food producers are already key contributors to Sydney's food supply. As the issue of food security becomes more and more pressing, we will have an opportunity to play a really key role there. In a lot of ways, this has the potential to put the Hawkesbury on the map internationally. We know this kind of technology is in demand around the world, so the investment has a huge potential to be a job creator as our local know-how is exported across the globe. I look forward to seeing this project come to fruition if Labor wins the next election. It will be a very exciting time. So the choice for me is pretty clear. On one side you have a government that really doesn't value investment in education, that dos as little as possible, but asks students to do as much as possible. An opposition member interjecting— Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 There is no point in shaking your head at it, because that's just how the numbers add up. On this side, we have an absolute commitment to ensuring quality education at every level—from preschool and early education through to our schools—which would mean an additional $16.5 million funding for schools in my electorate of Macquarie over the first three years. Those are the sorts of commitments we have alongside this commitment to university funding. So the choice in university funding at the next election is clear. Labor will properly fund our universities and give students who have the ability and are willing to work hard the opportunity of a really valuable university education—valuable for them and valuable for us as an economy and a society. 18:16 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I join my Labor colleagues tonight—and I would note that we are once again bereft of speakers from the other side—in cautious support of the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018. The bill proposes to impose an annual charge on all higher education providers whose students are entitled to HECS-HELP assistance, with the revenue raised to go to the Higher Education Loans Program. The projected impact of the is a budget saving of $14.1 million over the forward estimates, and we don't see that as an extraordinary amount of money in this case. But I would like to take the opportunity, as my colleagues have, to talk more broadly about higher education in this country and this government's record while it has this bill before us, and seeks our support for, this bill. It has been at odds with us for five years over higher education. Sometimes those debates have been very heated because, on this side of the chamber, we desperately want to see that, as a country, we invest in our people. Investing in our people is an investment in our economy. But we're not happy to see investment in just some people; we want to see access to a quality education for all Australians. That's why the debates have been so bitterly argued. As someone who stands here as the first generation in my family to attend university, I completely understand the transformational change that has made in my life, in the lives of some of my siblings and in the lives of those of us who were fortunate enough to pursue a university education. It has changed the lives of the next generation in my family. It has built aspiration into that next generation. My parents managed to make us aspirational by insisting that the first option for us was a university education and by aspiring to that. Of course, in the case of me and my siblings who attended university, they were assisted by a Labor government that allowed access to a free university education. Two of my older siblings accessed education through the scholarship program. There are eight children in my family, and I'm No. 7, so there is 10 years between myself and an older sister who accessed it through a scholarship, whereas I was fortunate to be of that generation who could sit in a classroom and say, 'I would like to go to university,' and it would be at no cost to myself or to my family. I would like to think I've repaid that debt to the Commonwealth. I'd like think that I've made a contribution in public education over 27 years and in this place. I also note that I wouldn't be in this place if I hadn't had that opportunity. This government seems intent on narrowing that opportunity to a certain set of people that come with a cheque book and can afford it. We fought them on changes introduced once they were elected in 2013. We fought them over the notion of increased fees for students. At some points in that debate it was estimated that fees could have gone as high as $100,000 for a degree. We won that debate. The government lost that war on young people. I proudly stand here as a Labor member who fought hard both for my electorate and for attending university—which brings me to my electorate. Under the previous Labor government, my electorate saw increased numbers of students accessing university, and those numbers have slipped over the past five years in terms of percentages per capita. I find that to be absolutely reprehensible, because we know that, for our economy, we need young people to be as highly skilled as we can allow. We know that nine in 10 jobs will need a TAFE or university qualification. We know, therefore, that we need to increase participation in both TAFE and university, yet this government attacks our university sector with funding cuts, including the 2017 MYEFO cut of $2.2 billion, which effectively put a cap on undergraduate places. This is where the rubber hits the road in an electorate like mine. The cuts in those undergraduate places bear poisoned fruit in my electorate. In the electorate of Lalor the population of the City of Wyndham, which is most of the electorate, has ticked over 250,000 in the last 12 months. That means we are more populous than the City of Greater Geelong. There has been a demographic change in our area as well, which has brought in families from all around the world—families, I might say, who are highly aspirational for their children. As I stand here and speak on this bill, I'm reminded of a conversation I had at a year 12 graduation not two weeks ago, where a parent told me that his two daughters, one of whom was graduating that night, were both aspiring to attend a university outside of Australia. I pondered at that point what that meant and thought about all the other children and young people I know that are seeking to attend universities offshore. It reminds me that the globe is getting smaller and smaller in these terms, and people are willing for their children to travel to seek out an education. It brought home to me just how important it is that we have a world-class university system here for our children to access, and how important it is not to be in a situation where we are cutting research dollars from our world-class universities to create places in regional universities—robbing Peter to pay Paul—when in fact what is required here is investment across the board. What is required here for any young person who has both the talent and the work ethic to reach university is the capacity to get there. This government seems to be intent on making it more and more difficult for our young people. They have changed the amount at which young people are asked to begin to repay their HECS debts. It is now at a level of $45,000 a year, which is only $9,000 more than the minimum wage. On top of that, they have cut penalty rates, which lots of young people in my electorate rely upon to attend university. That brings me to another action from this government: the delayed application processes and payments of youth allowance. I have had students in my electorate wait a complete semester before receiving one payment. I don't have to paint too big a picture here for you to understand that that means that young people in my electorate, having worked hard and gained entry to the university, are walking away from university education because of cost-of-living issues. It doesn't take much to understand that there may be parents in my electorate, with both parents working and possibly not on much above the minimum wage, who find themselves with an 18-plus-year-old who can't access their youth allowance. It's not that they're not entitled; they are absolutely entitled. But from December, when they finish their exams, through to February, when they start university, they are possibly working part time. The other side of that is that they think that there will be an income there for them and that they will have support through Youth Allowance, but that support fails to come. That means kids are walking away from university. I can't put it more plainly than that. In an area like ours, it is incredibly important that every level of support be put in place to ensure that the young people in my electorate can access these things. When this government was elected, the member for Warringah, the then Prime Minister, told the university sector that they were in for a period of benign neglect. In contrast, they have now seen themselves losing 10,000 undergraduate places this year alone under this government's changes. The Mitchell Institute suggests that the current policies of this government would see 235,000 students miss out by 2031. I know which areas of Australia those students are going to come from. Your IQ is not defined by your postcode, but it appears that university entrance can be, unless governments create policies that ensure equity of access; ensure that those students, our brightest and best, will be supported while they study; and ensure that there is not some kind of economic selection process that is being gone through to determine who will get the benefit. When the government were introducing the original cuts and suggesting students could pay up to $100,000 for a degree, they told us many times: 'That's fine. Those students who get a university education will earn an enormous amount of money at the other end.' So why would we want to narrow the economic factors here to prevent students from my electorate being the big winners in the education stakes? Labor will ensure, if we win government, that over the next decade approximately $10 billion in additional funding will go to universities. This will see around 200,000 more students get the opportunity of a university education. I can't stress enough how important that is for the young people that I represent. This includes our commitment of $300 million, which will go to funding much-needed infrastructure to upgrade our research and teaching facilities, and $174 million in equity and pathways funding to provide mentors and pathways for students from areas with low university graduate rates. That would include the electorate of Lalor, which I represent. Our children are as talented as any set of children across this nation. Those who are fortunate enough to make it to university have incredible results. I've had young people working for me across the last five years—home-grown, home-educated kids—doing honours and JDs. They have been studying and working incredibly hard. We have the talent, but there are hurdles in the way. The Labor government will remove some of those hurdles. There's a fantastic not-for-profit that operates in the western suburbs of Melbourne called Western Chances. It was founded by Terry Bracks, wife of former Premier Steve Bracks, to tackle exactly this issue—to put in place scholarships and support that will support students from secondary school all the way through to the completion of their studies. That has been operating in the western suburbs for a long time. It is time consuming for teachers to fill out the paperwork to suggest a child, but I have seen some fabulous stories from Western Chances when we've put the right supports in place and removed some of the hurdles. I invite any member of this House to come to a Western Chances's graduation evening to meet some of their graduates. They are now forming an alumni. Western Chances are supporting young people from the western suburbs not only at senior secondary college and in their transition to university but also through university. Western Chances offers further support in employment. It's amazing to see their work on the ground. It's opening doors for many students in the western suburbs of Melbourne. I applaud the member for Sydney, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, on announcing that the money in HEPPP will be now open to not-for-profit organisations. This will allow not just universities to seek out appropriate students and put in supports but generous minded individuals in the community and in the not-for-profit sector who are already doing this work to leverage off their existing structures to help more students in the western suburbs of Melbourne, particularly in the outer west area that I represent. I support these bills cautiously. I urge those opposite to review the position they are taking on higher education and to come back to this House with some better policies and better funding structures to ensure that students in my electorate are given access to the quality education that they deserve. 18:31 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa With a hefty dose of caution I rise today to speak on the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018 and related bill. This is a government that is always looking for savings wherever it can find them. It's a government that will take cost-cutting to a knife's edge before it impacts on those who are trying to get a university education in Australia. My electorate of Werriwa has access to three world-class universities: Western Sydney University, the University of Wollongong and the University of New South Wales, which is based at Liverpool Hospital. More universities still have signed an expression of interest for the aerotropolis at the new Badgerys Creek airport. The electorate of Werriwa is also the most vulnerable electorate in Australia when it comes to fluctuating cost-of-living pressures. Therefore, I worry that, if universities even mention the prospects of sharing the tax burden through student fee increases, bright young people from my electorate may see a university education as beyond their reach, and that is something we can't do. We must encourage our youngest to go to university. I am proud to say that it was Labor that created Australia's world-renowned income-contingent loan scheme—HELP, the Higher Education Loan Program. For those students who might otherwise be deterred by the cost of a university education, this loan program says clearly, 'You don't have to pay back the loan to the government until you're reaping the benefits of an increased earning capacity.' Labor believes it's fair that students make a contribution to the cost of their higher education, but students should never have to pay these fees upfront. In principle, universities paying to have loans administered seems reasonable; however, we must ensure that these costs do not touch students, making going to university even more unaffordable. Students in Australia already pay the sixth-highest fees in the OECD. This is why Labor will be referring these bills to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry. Equality in access to tertiary education has been utterly transformational in my family. My generation was the first in my family to attend university and benefit from the opportunities that higher education can provide. My sister, Kathy Mee, of whom I am very proud, attended the University of Sydney. Kathy recalls that, when she first attended Sydney, there were very few students in that first economics class that came from as far away as Liverpool. Certainly most of them didn't come from west of the GPO. The opportunities that the university has given my sister have been extraordinary to watch. She has a PhD and she is also a lecturer at the University of Newcastle. These opportunities would not have been provided in any other way. My sons, too, have all attended university. So, in just two generations, the wealth of opportunities provided by university education have been incredible to observe. My sons work as secondary school teachers and graphic designers. Access to tertiary education has been my boys' pathways to opportunity and prosperity. It makes me nervous when the government starts putting legislation like this forward, because I know how fragile the possibility of going to university is for some Australians. A university education has meant that my eldest son has been able to join the housing market and just recently buy a house. That's probably something he wouldn't have done if he continued his previous job, working very hard—no less hard than what he currently works—but in retail, considering that penalty rates have now been cut. It is with the utmost caution that we on this side of the House provide our support to the bill. We know that this is a government that seems to cut, trim and hollow out until only a skeleton is left, and a skeleton of a higher education system has no option but to pass on increased cost burdens to those who access it. These charges must not flow back to the students. They really mustn't. We do not want to see higher fees and higher charges for those trying to access a university education within Australia. The decision to recap undergraduate places will devastate participation rates in higher education. Recent data from the Mitchell Institute tells us that, because of this government's decisions, up to 235,000 Australians could miss out on a university education by 2031. That's only 12 years away. Labor want to see more participation in higher education in Australia. We want to boost the number of students accessing the benefit that a university degree brings. I note what the member for Lalor said about IQ and your postcode. She is absolutely correct. It doesn't matter where you live, but quite often your ability to afford to go to university does matter, so it is very important that we make these things accessible to everyone. It's not fair that students from the North Shore of Sydney are five times more likely to go to university than those in the Moreton Bay region of Queensland. Labor wants to change this. We have already announced $174 million in equity and pathways funding that will fund mentoring and pathways for students from areas with low university graduation rates. Such funding measures are critical. The value of personal mentoring for students who have little family precedence for navigating university systems is critical, because if you can see it, you know you can do it. Labor knows how much it means to have someone who has done it all before walking beside a first-time student. The funding for this scheme comes on top of Labor's $10 billion commitment to return to the demand driven funding system from 2020, which will see around 200,000 more Australians over 12 years access a university education. What's more, it is Labor that will pour $300 million into a universities futures fund that will be dedicated to updating the teaching and research facilities at our major universities. These are the policies of our party, and we value higher education. The choice on university funding at the next election is crystal clear. A Labor government will proactively fund Australian universities, giving students who have the ability and the gumption for hard work every opportunity to access a university education. Who knows—if we give everybody that opportunity, we may find the things that are needed to look at our future and cure cancer and all the other things that are currently eluding us. We don't want to slam the door on university to anybody in our country who wants to go. In closing, Labor's commitment to higher education is relevant here because, just like where there's smoke, there's fire. Where there have been little snips, there are funding cuts looming overhead, and where there are funding cuts, there will be lost opportunities for bright young Australians all over the country to access the benefits of a university education and, furthermore, lost opportunities for the rest of us, missing out on the benefits of that university education when coming back to the workforce. Asking universities to contribute towards the cost of loan provision is an appropriate measure, but it is critical we ensure that this taxation measure is not passed onto the students. Universities must shoulder the burden of the tax. Whilst we support this bill in principle, it must be submitted for further inquiry. Labor will continue to fight for affordable university education, and putting this bill under the microscope is no exception. 18:40 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I too would like to make a contribution in this cognate debate. I want to make it clear from the outset, as the other speakers and the member for Werriwa has, that we will be supporting the passage of these bills, but we do so with a degree of caution. That's why we want to refer the bills to a senate committee for inquiry. In essence, the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018 seeks to impose an annual charge for higher education providers, including universities, to access the HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP schemes. These charges will be imposed on higher education providers as a tax. The second bill, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2018, seeks to introduce a small application fee for higher education providers that apply for FEE-HELP status. As I've said, we have certainly offered our support for the passage of these bills, because we understand the policy needed and the requirement to assist the funding of the Higher Education Loan Program, the Commonwealth's program that provides income-contingent loans for Australian citizens studying vocational and higher education programs in this country. The income protection loans have been one of the key foundations for Architecture Australia's fair and accessible higher education system. On this side, we understand that. Labor certainly understands the issue of the fundamental role of income-contingent HELP loan scheme plays in our higher education system. After all, it is Labor that has always stood in this House to protect its integrity. It is Labor that first introduced the concept of HECS in 1989. We understand what is necessary to provide appropriate incentives to support young people, in particular, in their quest for higher and tertiary education. Universities Australia highlights the integral role played by the HELP scheme when they noted that it: …underwrote the growth of a mass higher education system in Australia and it continues to support expansion of access and opportunity. I think they're pretty right about that. In conjunction with Labor's demand-driven funding, the HELP system has seen historic growth in higher education participation over the past decade, transforming higher education in this country. There is a reason behind all that. It is because we believe that an investment in education is in fact an investment in the future prosperity of this country. I emphasise that, while we won't be frustrating the passage of these bills, we do want to have the bills referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for further inquiry. We want an assurance by this government that the charges proposed in these bills will not flow back to students through higher education fees or higher charges for services provided by the respective academic institutions. Our concerns are how fees will be set and the proposed administration of the fees by the Department of Education and Training. With respect, given the department's poor record when it comes to the administration of the VET FEE-HELP scheme, we want to be assured that there is certainly a proper and well-thought-out process to administer the new charges, including what safeguards and quality assurance measures will be put in place. In a time of significant economic transition such as we are presently going through, we should be investing more in our people. We don't want to make it harder for them to gain a university qualification. As a matter of fact, we want to have more people being able to access vocational and tertiary education. Australian students—as you probably would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker—are at the moment paying the sixth-highest rate of fees in the OECD for the privilege of their education. With respect to many on the other side, if they had had their way in the last couple of budgets, we would have seen $100,000 university degrees being initiated in this country. We don't want to put tertiary education beyond the means of young people, beyond the means of people in low socioeconomic areas or beyond the means of people who are committed to making a change and improving their lives and those of their families. On most occasions when I've been able to speak in this place, I've discussed my electorate. My electorate is very vibrant. It's very colourful. In fact, it's the most diverse and multicultural community in the country. In addition to that—and my electorate is very much made up of migrants—one of the largest shares of all refugees who come to this country is in my community. So I know what it's like to talk to people who come to this country with the hope for better lives for themselves and their families. I know what their ambitions are like. People who are coming, particularly those who are coming with refugee backgrounds, come full of hope, dreams and great aspirations for their children. That's one of the primary reasons why, at a school level, my P&Cs are essentially full. Parents will always participate with schools to ensure that their kids do well because they want their children to do well at school because this is their ticket, as they see it, into a university education. I think it probably should be broader than that, but in their mind they see that their children getting a university education will lift them out of poverty and will give them a better life than their mum and dad enjoyed, particularly those who came here directly as refugees. So the aspirational value of trying to attract young people—particularly, in my case, from low socioeconomic backgrounds—into tertiary education is very, very strong. We don't want to do anything through these bills that acts as a disincentive in the way that the fees and charges are processed by the department and that could find its way back to putting a higher impost on those families for having their kids receive the benefit of a university education in this country. With the changes that this government has already brought about, apart from the cuts to higher education, we all know that people are now forced to start paying their HECS debts at $45,000 per annum, which is only $9,000 above the minimum wage in this country. As I say, we want to see a greater participation in higher education. I attended only recently something organised by my old alma mater: the University of Sydney's Widening Participation and Outreach program. It's a program that's designed to be directed at low socioeconomic communities—as I indicated, mine certainly is one of those—but also at regional and remote areas, and it is also directed at people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds. It is trying to target those to be able to make a significant difference in their lives and in their futures by higher education. I'm very proud that the University of Sydney has, once again, sought to direct part of that campaign at my community, and I'll certainly be doing the best I can to ensure its success because I have seen how it's changed lives. As a matter of fact, when we opened their campaign only recently in Cabramatta, a young boy—whose name, regrettably, on the spur of the moment, I can't recall—and his mum attended. She didn't speak a word of English, but she wanted her child to be well educated in this country. He has now completed his university degree in commerce and economics. He is doing very well. He's looking after his family. I thought, 'That's a great success story of how these programs can change lives and change futures.' What we've seen from those opposite, quite frankly, has been a relentless attack on higher education. The Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments have delivered budgets that have recently cut $2.2 billion from our universities. Since the election of the Liberal government in 2013, universities and students have been under a constant attack, with issues of fee deregulation, policy chaos and general uncertainty. The 2017 MYEFO decision was basically a backdoor way to once again cut $2.2 billion from our universities to effectively recap undergraduate places and charges and end the Higher Education Loan Program. They were just reckless and unfair. Thousands of students under that sort of scenario will miss out on the opportunity of university places because of the government cuts and of cutting of places. These cuts leave many students with uncertainty as to how they will be affected. Universities Australia's chair, Professor Margaret Gardner, was pretty correct when she described these cuts by this government as a 'double whammy' on students, lifting fees and eroding funds for courses, student learning and support. I want to just talk a little more broadly about higher education in my community. Only last week a young woman came into my office. She has agreed for me to use her name. Her name is Hilda Shamoun and she lives in Wakeley. She came to my office because she was attending a course of a private provider. She was doing a Bachelor of Design. Ms Shamoun, as I said, contacted my office only last week because her education provider had informed her that not only will her degree no longer be available at the institution that she was enrolled in; the institution will also be closing down in two weeks time without making any necessary arrangements or providing any assistance for her to transfer to a similar course in another institution. They just basically said, 'We're really sorry about this, but we're going into administration. We're closing down.' That's just one young woman who just happens to live in my electorate. That's one young woman who has been running up FEE-HELP. She has been doing all that, yet where was the oversight to look at the running and administration of these courses? The organisation simply says, 'We're going to close our doors now,' and there's no residual support to help her find a place anywhere else. More recently, I've had many, many discussions with Professor Barney Glover, the vice-chancellor and president at Western Sydney University. In terms of the cuts, Barney sums up very succinctly the ramifications of the government's reaction, through their budgetary actions, to universities by stating, 'The changes that the government is proposing constitute a significant risk to the sustainability, quality and competitiveness of Australian universities.' I think that just goes to show that this government has a track record and, when looking to see where the hollow logs are, they pick on universities, pick on TAFE and pick on schools—they pick on education. This is not a government that's committed to the future of this country; this is a government that's simply trying to rob Peter to pay Paul. Just about everyone on this side of the chamber has given speeches highlighting the $17 billion cut from our schools, the $637 million cut from TAFE colleges and the $2.2 billion taken out of our universities. How can people seriously think that those opposite are committed to the future of this country, when we all know that an investment in education is an investment in the future prosperity of Australia? Deputy Speaker Vasta, I know you are probably well aware of these arguments. Regrettably, this is a government that has not shown the commitment that is necessary for the future of this country. Hopefully, come early next year, we will see a government on the Treasury benches that is committed to the future of the country by reinvesting in education. 18:55 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I thank all those who've made contributions to this debate in the chamber today. I am happy to speak on the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018 and the Higher Education Support (Cost Recovery) Bill 2018. Previous speakers have spoken at length and in detail on the subject matter of this bill and I'll briefly outline the key points. Labor will support the bill, but an amendment has been moved by the member for Sydney, which I would like to speak to. The bill seeks to impose an annual charge on all higher education providers across Australia whose students are entitled to HECS-HELP assistance or FEE-HELP assistance. This charge will effectively act as a tax on all higher education providers—not a very effective one—minimal but nonetheless an extra tax on universities around the country. It will be in place in conjunction with the cost recovery bill amendment and will introduce a provision for an application fee for universities seeking approval while offering FEE-HELP to students, as well as providing administration for this annual charge. Labor offers support for this bill but I note the amendment moved by the member for Sydney: that the House notes that over five years the government has cut billions in funding from Australia's universities and vocational education and training, making it harder for Australians to attain university and TAFE qualifications. It's imperative that the Australian public and those opposite are reminded of the cuts that they have made to this sector—significant cuts that will affect the operation of the great universities in this country that have been progressing education, knowledge, research and science for many, many years. Labor believes, and has done so for a long time, that it's right that students do make a contribution to the cost of their higher education, but it does not mean that we think students should be forced to pay up-front fees. That's a notion that has been introduced before in this place by those opposite. Whilst the coalition members across the divide here argue and bicker about the merits of higher education in Australia and seek to restrict the research that goes on in those institutions, they also try to filter who gets to go to university. We on this side of the House understand that the funding of education—higher education or otherwise—is an investment in this country's future and shouldn't be considered a cost burden that you might cut at your earliest and briefest whim. Whilst we don't oppose these measures, we've referred the bills to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for an inquiry in order to make sure there's no scenario in which the charges outlined in these bills will flow back to students through higher fees or through increased service charges applied to them by the universities. We know that Australian students already pay the sixth-highest fees in the OECD for university education and we don't want to see that figure rise any higher. And, of course, we know that if the government had had their way, as proposed in the 2014 budget, they would have already introduced $100,000 university degrees. That's one of the figures that was put about, in fact by a university I used to go to: the University of Western Australia. Some might say it was a courageous decision, but not so courageous in the end. Of course, those fees have not come through, but only through the efforts of the Labor Party in this place. As it is, the government has already forced students to start paying off HELP debts when they only barely reach the minimum wage. Debt is a huge barrier in many aspects of Australian life; however, it is particularly hard for students from low-SES families to rise above and try to improve their lives through tertiary education when they have this extraordinary debt applied to them from what is a young age. It makes it very tough on these students. They certainly have a very difficult time trying to move out of home, let alone trying to get on with their lives and their careers through gaining a university degree. The Liberal-National coalition government have smashed the funding levels of universities across the country, and I believe they have put the sector at significant risk. In my own state of Western Australia, we've seen the impact of the federal government's cuts: Curtin University will receive a cut of $86 million to its funding, Edith Cowan University will receive a cut of $49 million to its funding, Murdoch University will receive a cut of $35 million to its funding and University of Western Australia's funding will be cut by $38 million. This is not what Australians and Western Australians want to see from their federal government. They want to see improvements in funding and in participation. Labor does as well. We want to see increased participation in higher education across the country, and that's why we uncapped places when we were in government. The government's decision to again cap undergraduate places will distort and smash the participation rates of people in higher education across this country. The recent reckless decision to cut $2.2 billion from universities and put this cap back in place will slash participation. Fewer and fewer students from diverse backgrounds will have access to higher education in this country. Research on this issue by the Mitchell Institute has found that these cuts will put at risk around 235,000 Australians who are seeking to go to university by 2020. This would devastate not only the university sector but the wider Australian economy as well. Labor has a plan in relation to higher education. We want to boost participation in the sector. We have announced $174 million in equity and pathways funding that will fund mentoring and pathways for students from areas with low university graduation rates. That funding is on top of Labor's almost $10 billion commitment to return to the demand-driven system from 2020, which will make sure that around 200,000 more Australians, over a decade, will get the opportunity of a university education. I would like to have a think about my electorate of Brand. It covers the areas of Rockingham and Kwinana, which is a low-socioeconomic-status district with very low attainment rates in high school graduations and achievements and therefore into the university sector. Adding these charges and cutting funding from universities does not help the cause of young people from my electorate being able to go to university. They are seeking to improve their lives and seeking to participate in what some people call the 'new workforce' and in a changing economy, which will be a knowledge economy. If it is not that already, it will only go more towards that. University education and post-high school, higher education degrees will be essential for them to participate in the new economy of this nation and, indeed, the world. The current $2.2 billion worth of cuts, put on their lives by this government, will be devastating to their chances in the future. Labor, however, has committed to a new $300 million universities future fund that will make sure that research and teaching facilities are modern, up to date and ready to face the challenges of the digital age. Having worked at a university for 10 years, I'm well aware that that is a challenge. Bricks-and-mortar universities need to adapt to a changing economy and the changing desire of students around the country to receive their education in different ways. They are adapting; it takes time. I know they are moving quickly, but it's tough and this future fund will help them to do it. At the end of the day, the Australian people will have two choices at the next election: a party that will properly fund our universities and protect our future or a party that wants to lock the gate against those seeking to improve their lives through education. Labor is also conducting a review into the higher education sector. We are committed to a fulsome review of higher education and vocational education, which will look at the difficulties in the system. It is a very complex system. As I said, I worked for a number of years at a university and realise the changes. It would be good thing for more people in this place to realise the challenges. It would also be good if more people in this place were able to understand the importance of the Australian Research Council and the funding that it provides to universities. What they call the teaching-research nexus is a very important part of what higher education is in this country. Research is critical to higher education. Better research makes for better teaching. It makes for better access to more-advanced thoughts, theories and modes of education. There was a remarkable thing earlier in the year. We found out in Senate estimates that Senator Birmingham had blocked $4 million worth of ARC grants to 11 projects. I believe that these were across discovery projects and perhaps also linkage projects. Anyway, they were Australian Research Council grants. It was an attack on the Australian Research Council, which is renowned throughout the globe for the extraordinary reputation of its peer review process. This is something that Senator Birmingham has flippantly disregarded, applying a very meek, childish test of judging someone's research proposal by a title. I might add that the forms a researcher has to fill in are limited in the number of letters you can use. You simply can't write out the whole title of your project; you have to make it brief. This can lead to a ridiculous misunderstanding when an incompetent minister decides to make a judgement because he thinks a two-sentence title—or not even that; it's a 20-word title—will dictate the whole benefit or otherwise of such research. Of course, it was an attack on the humanities and social sciences. It was a ridiculous judgement call on things this government simply doesn't like. It goes against any inkling of its so-called push for freedom of speech in universities when a ministerial direction, a little stroke of the pen, just cuts out research projects and, I might add, cuts out people's livelihoods at that. I want to make it clear to people in this House and in the other place that academics are people too. They do research. They deserve to get paid for their research. They spend a lot of time doing their research. It turns out they have families. They have mortgages to pay as well. They pay their taxes. They send their kids to school. And a government like this one and its ideological warriors who sit inside their own impenetrable Canberra bubble—they make such a meal of this Canberra bubble, yet they are the ones trapped within it—ruin someone's livelihood with a stroke of a pen because they don't think it's worth it. All the while in the background, you have an internationally renowned, peer reviewed, independent process that has been going on up until this time, very non-partisanly accepted as a means by which you would distribute precious research dollars. Of course, it's been attacked before, and that was by the former minister for education Brendan Nelson. He cut a few ARC grants. This is not the first time the Liberals have sought to giggle and titter at titles that they don't like the sound of. They really should stop it. They should consider what research is. They should consider the value of arts in this community. It's a community that values research into all manner of things—the technical sciences as well as the social sciences. You might remember former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, the former member for Wentworth. He had this policy about science and innovation and how agile we could be—wouldn't that be great for the nation? Of course, that disappeared rather quickly when the knuckle-draggers in the government really didn't like science at all. They also don't like social sciences and history and reviewing history and thinking about the lessons we could learn from history. Now the current minister for education has held up the approval of the Australian Research Council grants, again putting at risk people's livelihoods as they move into Christmas. This is ridiculous. It's unnecessary. It's an attack on higher education and an attack on research in this country—on a system that has served this nation very well. We depend on it to build this nation's knowledge economy, yet you take a pen out and you just rub someone's life and their livelihood out for a bit of a giggle and a stupid little Twitter statement—a couple of digits to make a laugh and get, I think, only about three likes for Minister Birmingham. So good on you! It's pettiness in the extreme. It's ridiculous. It denigrates research in this country. It's shameful. They attack the whole of the higher education system and, quite frankly, respect for Western civilisation—and they've attacked that before, haven't they? The words that come out are ridiculous—not from all members opposite, but some are pretty cranky with different things. One of them is about freedom of speech at universities and the protection of Western civilisation. Then, when someone wants to do research on that, they think it's not on because they don't like the title. I urge the government to consider what it's doing sometimes. I'm sure you have friends and you talk to these ministers. Maybe you could give them a nudge and say: 'Calm the heck down. Stop this political interference into the independent Australian Research Council process which looks at these.' It is only a 30 per cent success rate. It is really hard to get an ARC grant. They work for months. You and I might have a couple of weeks off in January, but I can tell you that the researchers in this country won't. They will be doing their grant application, which takes them the full month. They will have rejoinder systems. They have to go back to their big research offices so they can get it through university admin before it even gets to the ARC, then have to come back again to improve the grant application so that they can get the grant. Some have been successful but have had to leave the country to get a job elsewhere, because a minister exercises a petty, ridiculous little decision-making power whereby he can just sweep someone's research away at the stroke of a pen. I really wish this government would stop it, would stand up for universities and would look after researchers. 19:10 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne This is part of the government's ongoing attack on universities. What we've seen over years is funding cuts to universities and the burden of the cost of education shifted further and further away from the government. This government doesn't think that education is a public good, doesn't think that having an educated society is important and doesn't think that everyone should have access to higher education or tertiary education of any form, no matter what their background, and so we are seeing Australia slowly go down the road of other countries, where you have to start saving up from the moment that your child is born if you want to be able to send them off somewhere after high school. We know, because we've had review after review tell us, that universities themselves are under enormous financial strain, because they are being underfunded. In the same way that we underfund our public schools in this country, we also underfund our public universities. So what does the government do? The government says, 'Let's make sure the universities have even less money to spend on teaching, on research and on their students.' The Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018 and the Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2018 will further shift the cost of providing education away from the Commonwealth. It comes in the context of the government's decision back in December of last year, by which time they had effectively slashed $2.2 billion from the higher education sector by freezing Commonwealth funding for teaching and learning. The Senate wasn't even allowed to have hearings when they conducted the inquiry on these bills. People made submissions and wanted the chance to front up and tell the government and the senators about the impacts of all of this, and they weren't even allowed to front up and make their case. No, the government just said, 'We will impose this obligation on you.' What's it going to do? This will make universities have to pay more money back to the government for things that the government should be doing as of right. As a result there is going to be less money available to the universities themselves. The bills propose shifting to higher education providers the costs of administering HELP loans, via yet another levy on higher education providers, who are already struggling. Universities Australia, which represents all the universities, said in its submission: higher education providers should not have to pay the bureaucracy to perform administrative functions that are integral to the HELP scheme and for which DET is already funded; It is a very good point. We are now saying universities have to pay a levy to the government for processing the things the government requires them to do. That is what the department is there for. This will mean less money for teaching, less money for research and less money for students. The University of Melbourne put it politely: The principle of asking universities to meet the costs of Government administration is an unfortunate precedent and one which should be, at the very least, interrogated … Absolutely right: if we say that public institutions now, in some sort of money-go-round, have pay back to the Commonwealth, in the form of a levy, money that they have received then this is going to be something the government presumably will want to start rolling out to other areas. They can say, 'We haven't cut funding.' Well, no, but you have given with one hand and forced them to give back—you've taken away—with the other. The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations stated in its submission: Inevitably, cuts impact the delivery of teaching and research, the core functions of universities in Australia. Funding cuts will be passed onto undergraduate and postgraduate students, whether they are built into tuition costs for full fee-paying students, result in increased student to academic staff ratios, or lead higher education providers to otherwise reduce the "cost of delivery" of education. In other words, to make ends meet, to make up for this effective cut, universities may well turn around and ask students to pay more, so the cost of education will go up, thanks to this government. And the University of Newcastle stated in its submission: … the costs of administering HELP are already shared by the university sector and government – the University of Newcastle, like other universities, provides a range of administrative and student services in order to ensure it properly administers HELP funding. Those services are now going to be under threat, potentially, as well. In the Greens' view, shifting the cost of administering student loans to higher education providers not only is wrong in principle but overburdens an already underfunded sector. We should be putting more money into students and education, not taking it out, which is what this government is proposing to do. It's going to penalise students, as the Innovative Research Universities stated in their submission. They said this will 'penalise students by further reducing the resources universities and other higher education providers have to deliver students a good education'. It's also of great concern that the charges that are potentially going to be levelled under this bill are not explicit. They will sit wholly outside legislation—including the methodology to calculate these charges—and what that does is that it prevents proper parliamentary scrutiny of the proposed changes. The amount and the calculation of the annual charge, by the time the bill had gone through the Senate inquiry, were going to be wholly determined by regulation which hadn't even been drafted. No wonder the universities are ringing the alarm bells about this. This is just a licence for the government. After we pass the budget, pass the appropriations bills, pass all the legislation that says, 'This is how much money we are going to give to universities,' this bill now gives the government the right to say, open ended, without parliamentary scrutiny, 'We are going to determine how much of it you're going to now have to give back. So forget what's in the budget figures. They're not actually going to be the real figures, because we're now going to be able to take a bit back from you.' A bit or a lot—who knows? You've got to ask: why did the government rush this legislation here with a very short consultation period, with no public hearings on this? The university sector aren't just screaming about the impact that this is going to have on them; they're also saying loud and clear, 'If you're going to do it to us, give us a chance to respond and tell us exactly what you're going to do.' The government wouldn't even give them that courtesy. So this bill should not proceed, and I hope that there are others in this chamber, in the opposition, who join us in opposing this bill. We need to make education free in this country. We need to start saying: it is time that everyone has a right to go to university, no matter what your background, and, when you leave university, you should not be saddled with a huge debt. That has been a Greens policy for a very long time, and at successive elections we've gone with plans that will get us, over time, towards that goal of having free university education. The thing is: we can afford it. We do not need to be putting people further and further into debt just because they've got a university education, because the life of a university graduate at the moment is a very, very difficult one. You enter an environment where 40 per cent of the jobs that are available are non-standard or insecure. You enter an environment where, back in the 1990s, an average house cost six times an average young person's income; by the mid-2010s, it cost 12 times a young person's income. You enter an environment where wages have been flatlining. You enter an environment where personal debt is now at, I think—and I stand to be corrected, but, if it's not there, it's pretty close—its highest when compared to household income for a very, very long time. Debt in this country is huge because wages are flatlining and people are having to borrow to make ends meet. If you're a university graduate, you've now got a debt that you've got to pay back, and pay back earlier, thanks to this government—before you even start hitting average wages. And now the government are saying, 'Well, we're going to enable universities to put up the cost of education even more.' We are creating a generational divide in this country, where people will be graduating with debts the size of small mortgages and will be forced to pay it back in a very insecure job market, where housing is unaffordable and where costs are going up but wages are flatlining. We are putting people under enormous pressure and eventually they are going to break. We should be going the other way. One way of doing that would be by lowering the cost of education, lowering the debts that people have to pay. When you think about it, there's actually no reason that students and graduates in this country have to go into debt. The debt that they've got is not a debt the government can call in like any other commercial debt. It's a bookkeeping entry; it's an accounting entry. What matters to the government is getting a stream of money every year, at the moment in the form of repayments. So what matters for the government is having a revenue stream to fund the cost of education. Well, let's wind back some unfair tax breaks and we could make education free. At the moment when people go to the petrol station to put petrol in their car they pay 40c a litre tax. When Gina Rinehart and her mining magnates put diesel into their trucks, they pay the tax and then they get it back, courtesy of a free kick from the taxpayer every year. People pay a couple of billion dollars so that wealthy mining companies can get a tax rebate on their diesel fuel. Why not just ask Gina Rinehart to pay the same tax on her fuel that everyone else in her country has to pay when they go to the bowser and put that money into funding education and making university education free again? Why not do that? That's what the Greens have been arguing for, for a very, very long time. Instead, we seem to be going down a different road; we are heading on the road to becoming a more unequal society, where the gap between the very rich and everyone else will grow and grow and grow. Can I say this, too: in a concentrated media market, where in some states you wake up in the morning and your choice is between a Murdoch newspaper and a Murdoch newspaper, we are going to need an educated population to hold powerful interests to account, to hold the parliament to account, to hold big corporations to account. If we don't have an educated population, then, heading into the 21st century, Australia is stuffed. Our advantages in this 21st century are going to be our minds, not our mines. Our advantages are going to be from investing in science, research, innovation and the humanities and in being able to lead the world. Instead, through this policy, because they've got to find money to be able to give Gina Rinehart unfair tax breaks, because they want to find money to go out and start funding new coal-fired power stations—because that's going to cost money and the money has to come from somewhere—they're looking around and they're saying, 'We'll cut it from universities,' and they cut it from universities again and again and again. They put students further into debt, and they lift the cost of education for students, and they are growing the divide and making inequality worse in this country. So we will oppose this bill, and I hope others in this place will join us in opposing this bill. It's not just about making sure there's more money for universities, which there should be; it's about making sure that students aren't being forced to pay more and more, which they will be if this bill passes, and the student organisations have expressed that concern very forcefully. Going to the next election, people will have a choice between a government that says, 'We don't care how much it costs to go to university because the people that we represent are going to be able to find the money from somewhere,' or the alternative government, which introduced HECS in the first place and has overseen an underfunded university system, or the Greens, who say, 'We need to make sure education is a right for all and we need to get back to the days of education being free and available.' We will have a plan to get there, and it does not involve cutting funding to universities. It involves saying that we're going to stand up to big, powerful interests—the big corporations—and say that it is time they paid their fair share. Enough unfair tax breaks! By winding back their unfair tax breaks, we will have enough money to make sure that Australia has a public education system that we can all be proud of and where you don't need to get a debt the size of a small mortgage to go to university. This bill should be opposed. It should die here in this House. If it doesn't, we'll put it to the test in the Senate. And who knows? We may well have an election by the time this bill comes around, so I hope that no-one else in this place is keen on rushing this bill through. It's a bad bill and it should be opposed. 19:25 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I want to make it very clear that I am incredibly tentative about supporting these bills, the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018 and the Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2018. The changes in these bills would introduce small charges for higher education providers, including universities, to access the HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP schemes. These bills also would introduce a small application fee for higher education providers when they are applying for FEE-HELP status. I am hesitant about this for two reasons: the fact that universities might try to pass this fee on to students—and students simply cannot afford this additional cost—and the massive cuts that Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the LNP government are also making to universities. I will deal with each concern in turn, and in addressing these concerns I firstly want to acknowledge and thank my Labor colleagues for referring the bills to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for an inquiry—for a thorough review regarding these concerns. I do not want to see the charges in these bills flow back to students through higher fees or higher charges for services. Australian students currently pay the sixth-highest fees in the OECD for a university education, and we have already witnessed the LNP trying to increase student fees. First the LNP tried to introduce $100,000 university degrees, at the same time that they were cutting penalty rates to those students who relied on that money to live. Students have been under constant attack by this LNP government. Those opposite clearly don't have a good history of looking after university students' bests interests, so why would these bills be any different? The inequality and disparity for regional students is already incredibly high. Regional students face major challenges studying in higher education. Whilst over the past five years overall numbers have increased, regional student numbers have remained under-represented in Australian universities. Why is it so tough for regional students? The main obstacles and how we can tackle these issues are the questions we should be asking ourselves. The No. 1 issue for students is the cost of living. All students struggle to meet the full-time demands of university, the part-time demands of work and the costs to just be able to live, pay the rent, buy food and pay electricity and mobile phone bills—all items that these days a full-time worker can barely afford. As a guide to what these living costs are: the Australian government requires international students to demonstrate funds of $18,600 per year to meet the cost of living. For Australian students at the age of 18 who live away from home, the full rate of youth allowance paid is around $426 per fortnight, which equals $11,000 per year. This amount begins to taper when annual parental income exceeds around $51,000. There hasn't been an increase in Newstart in real terms for 24 years. The single rate of Newstart is $278 per week, and we know that essentials such as rent and food could cost approximately $433. Clearly there is a significant gap between what is considered a minimum cost of living for international students and the full-time rate of student income support. For regional students who are transitioning to residential colleges or the rental accommodation market, living on $11,000 is a serious challenge. This income figure is well below the poverty line. Cost of living is crippling students, and it is clearly disproportionately affecting regional students. Then there is the startling statistic that one in seven university students regularly goes without food and other necessities because they cannot afford them. The latest national financial survey of Australian university students has found this statistic to be true. This rises to one in four First Nations students and almost one in five students from the poorest quarter of Australian households, including those who are also shouldering the costs of raising children. The Universities Australia— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 74 ADJOURNMENT Taxation 74 19:30 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley For many years Australia's largest company, BHP, has been gaming our tax system, and it has been involved in disputes with the ATO over unpaid taxes in excess of a billion dollars. BHP has been joined by other large multinationals like Rio Tinto and Chevron in fleecing the Australian taxpayer through the use of tax havens and tax shields such as Singapore. BHP's Singapore tax shield and other tax havens exist to smuggle profits out of Australia. Last month BHP's status as one of Australia's largest tax evaders was laid bare by its settlement with the tax office on disputes which go back as far as 2003. The settlement confirms what BHP has repeatedly and publicly denied, that its Singapore marketing hub was used for tax evasion using transfer pricing. This settlement with the tax office was made possible by laws I passed in 2012 and 2013 as Australian Treasurer. Over our six years in government the Liberals opposed every measure introduced by Labor to close corporate tax loopholes, which had in themselves been opened up by previous Liberal governments. The laws that delivered the settlement were opposed by the current Prime Minister. But, thanks to the Labor Party, the full impact of these laws in the years ahead will return many billions of dollars back to the Australian taxpayer. I first raised the issues at the core of the BHP settlement with the tax office in 2015. BHP's duplicity and hypocrisy in this matter was laid bare in the Senate tax inquiry of that year. The finding of the Senate inquiry gave BHP the chance to come clean, reform their practices and rejoin the majority of Australian businesses that do pay their fair share of tax. Sadly, they chose the path of concealment. Since then, at every turn BHP have continued to deny the true purpose of their dual structure, which it continued to defend aggressively in all its public statements. But now, in this agreement with the tax office, it has shut down. I said then that the full impact of their activities was yet to be realised. These laws were used in the 2017 Chevron judgement handed down by the Federal Court, which added $430 million to the budget bottom line. I said then, assuming conservatively that 10 per cent of corporate tax revenue over the forward estimates was lost to tax minimisation and evasion, that a minimum cumulative cost to the budget would have returned many, many billions of dollars. At every stage since 2015, BHP have chosen to deny, obscure and mislead the public over their deliberate tax evasion. The settlement with the tax office confirms that more than $1 billion in tax and royalty revenue has been funnelled out of Australia over the past decade, contrary to BHP's public statements. Stunningly, in the 2017 BHP annual report they confirmed that their CEO was awarded a million-dollar bonus for enhancing BHP's tax and transparency reputation. BHP cannot claim to be transparent given their failure to outline numerous back payments to the tax office as a result of tax audits over a decade long. When global companies like BHP act this way they compromise the social contract and give a green light to others to go about minimising or evading their tax. When the former chairman, Jac Nasser, retired and a new chairman, Ken MacKenzie, was appointed, BHP did have the opportunity to restore its reputation as 'The Big Australian' and shut down its Singapore marketing hub. Sadly, it did not take the opportunity and launched another misleading advertising campaign. As I said at that time, BHP was at risk of becoming known as 'the dishonest Australian'. Sadly, its announcement of the settlement with the tax office continues down that path. The BHP board now has an opportunity to be honest and forthright with the Australian people and not hide behind a legal agreement. The board should provide a full and frank explanation of its role in aggressive transfer pricing and the ethical framework it will use in the future to re-establish trust with the authorities and the public. It should now come clean about the total amount of royalties it owes state governments as a result of deliberately understating their sales to related parties. Anything less than a full and frank statement about these matters leaves a cloud over the board's commitment to transparency. Congratulations to the ATO staff, who pursued this matter doggedly, and to our pensioners, patients and students who all benefit from their hard work. I salute the hard work of the tax office. In the wash-up of this scandalous attempt to undermine the tax base, what has become evident is that some leaders of corporate conglomerates like BHP simply believe they are above the law. Energy 75 19:35 Mr JOYCE E5D New England One of the core tenets of John Stuart Mill was that producers and sellers should be perfectly free. He did create one sole check on that, and that is the equal freedom for the buyer to supply themselves elsewhere—to go elsewhere if they were being done over. Adam Smith had a similar tenet—that the monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price and raise their emoluments. These people were approaching the issue of monopoly power and oligopoly power and called into question that we have to have a society that checks these powers. Even if you go right back to Edward the Confessor, they talk about 'forstealing'. Once more, the concept of people manipulating the market is not new. The UK has the Enterprise Act. In 1890, there was the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 was built on the Sherman Antitrust Act. Canada has a Competition Act. When people talk about sovereign risk, you can't get more sovereign risk than this: a power company, such as AGL, coming in and saying: 'We will supply the market at the quantity we believe gets us the best price.' It is called shorting the market, and there is nothing new about that. AGL's obstinacy and belligerence has brought forward the divestiture powers that are present in the legislation that is before the parliament. I might have had many arguments recently with the former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, but on this we are 100 per cent on the same page. Mr Andrew Vesey sat in that room when we tried to say 'be reasonable', and he knew that we had no laws to deal with the power that he had. There was not an arrow in our quiver that we could properly fire. And so, when he said that Liddell basically had no value on their books—and even later, when we found out that people were willing to offer up to a quarter of a billion dollars—he denied the sale because he knew that the effect for the price of his commodity by shorting the market, by, as Adam Smith said, never fully supplying the effectual demand, was going to be a windfall gain to him. We have a peculiar situation now, because the Labor Party is standing behind the big corporations and protecting their interests—against the interests of small business and against the interests of people trying to pay their power bills. What a peculiar place this has become. Why would the Labor Party stand behind the big corporations? Well, there is a contract in here. The contract is that they don't question the big corporation's power and the big corporation will never question their direct payments and withdrawals from their members for union fees. This is what we see in big corporations; there is a linkage there. In the National Party, we like small business. We like the right of the individual to basically move through the economic stratification of life, from the lowest level to the highest level, limited only by their innate abilities. We called for the power companies to be reasonable—and they weren't. And power companies who had never darkened the door of a member's office are here now saying the sky is going to fall in. Well, it hasn't. The sky hasn't fallen in in the United States, Canada or England. But there has to be a check on this. These divestment powers are so vitally important if we are to have a sword of Damocles not to use every day but to say: 'You will treat the parliament with respect, you will treat the request of the Prime Minister of Australia with respect. If you don't, we have the power to legislate'—and we must do that in this case. We had a state owned organisation—I know the history—but it became a private organisation, and we had vertical integration within that organisation that gave them immense market power. We understand that AGL is not going out of coal. They've got Bayswater, a massive coal-fired power station, but they like the idea of Liddell closing down, because that way they can make more money out of a smaller number of product. This is an interesting time. This is, I believe, a line of demarcation. The Labor Party can stand with the major power companies and prattle on about some peculiar reason of how they are going to protect sovereign risk and how they're going to protect the market. We will look after the mums and dads who can't pay their power bills. Washington, Mr Amos 76 19:40 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Amos Washington is a young person from my electorate of Mayo. He's this year's Australia's youth representative to the United Nations. As part of his role, Amos embarked on a nationwide listening tour, consulting with thousands of young people across the country. In consultations he sought to answer the question: what would Australia look like if young people had a greater say? Amos ran consultations in schools, community groups, not-for-profits, universities, TAFE colleges and juvenile detention centres. He visited our big cities and our remote communities and he spoke with young people from a diverse range of backgrounds. In September and early October, Amos spent six weeks working at the Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York. There he delivered a speech on behalf of young Australians to the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. This week Amos releases the Australian youth representative consultation report. The report is the culmination of thousands of conversations with young people across the country and summarises Amos's findings for the year. The top three issues raised in consultation this year were mental health and wellbeing, discrimination and inequality, and education. The prevalence of problems relating to mental health and wellbeing is an issue that has increased significantly since last year's youth representative report. Young Australians consider mental health issues to be at a crisis point. When young Australians spoke to Amos about mental health, they expressed their concern about inadequate access to youth mental health services, a lack of education about mental health issues and particular challenges that young people experience with respect to mental health when they live in regional Australia. In Amos's consultations, young people saw the interconnections between mental health and other community issues. Young people that he spoke to around the country shared stories of challenging issues that they face and how these issues affect their wellbeing. An Aboriginal high school student Amos met in Tasmania expressed sadness that her education has not provided her with enough knowledge about her cultural heritage and her shared stories with other Aboriginal Australians. Culturally diverse young people from Western Sydney shared stories about verbal harassment and discrimination simply because of how they look. In consultation in a small regional town in my home state of South Australia, a young group of women identified a connection between a lack of enjoyable activities for young people and increased crime, drug and alcohol abuse, racism and poor mental health. Amos's report emphasises that the wellbeing of young people impacts on the rest of our community and that, if we support young peoples' wellbeing and participation, the whole of our community benefits. One young woman in a consultation in remote South Australia felt as though young people were merely in the peripheral vision of leaders. We politicians must do better to ensure that young people are not only heard but also included and actively encouraged to participate in the political process and policy decision-making. We can enrich our policy conversations in here, if we bring young people to the table. In his report, Amos provides eight recommendations that came about from his conversations with those thousands of young people. Amos is sitting here in the chamber tonight. This year, Amos sought to answer the question: what would Australia look like if young people had a greater say? In his speech, he said: If young people had a greater say in decision-making and setting our policy agenda, our world would be kinder, safer, and healthier. If young people had a greater say, our world would truly be more united. I could not agree more. There's much said about our young people, and often it is negative. In my electorate of Mayo I am incredibly proud to have such wonderful young people as Amos. We have many, many good young people, and they are our next leaders—our next generation. I seek leave to table the 2018 Australian youth representative consultation report, and I commend Amos on all of his good works in representing Australia at the UN. Leave granted. Ms SHARKIE 265980 Thank you. Climate Change 76 19:45 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes Over the past week, we have seen riots on the streets of Paris. They started over the French government's plans to increase their despised carbon tax on the price of diesel and petrol. France's carbon tax is set to rise from 44.6 euros, set in 2008, to 55 euros next year, and will rise all the way up to 100 euros by the year 2030. The increase in this carbon tax will boost the price of petrol next year by 3.9 euro cents per litre and 7.6 euro cents per litre for diesel. The question is: could what we are seeing on the streets of Paris happen here? If we look at Labor's policies, under a future Labor government—I hate to say it—there is a true risk that what we're seeing on the streets of France could happen here. Labor have stated that they have a policy of a 45 per cent economy-wide emissions reduction target. Forget electricity for the moment. Forget the wind turbines and the solar panels. Electricity contributes less than one-third of Australia's CO2-equivalent emissions. Australia's transport sector contributes 18 per cent. Breaking that 18 per cent down further, passenger cars are 44 per cent, light commercial vehicles are 16 per cent, buses are two per cent, rigid trucks are nine percent, articulated trucks are 14 per cent and domestic aviation is nine per cent. The question is: how are the Labor Party going to achieve a 45 per cent emissions reduction target in the transportation sector by 2030? That's remembering that 45 per cent reduction target is off 2005 levels. Off today's levels, it's actually a 55 per cent reduction target. How are Labor going to do this? Even if we took every single passenger car off the roads and we took every single aeroplane out of the sky, that would still not be enough to meet Labor's 55 per cent reduction on today's levels. The concern is that the Labor Party have plans for a carbon tax on the price of petrol to achieve their targets. In 2013, the Climate Change Authority estimated that a 45 per cent emissions reduction target—exactly what is proposed by Labor—would require a carbon tax of $135 per tonne. That would add 40c a litre to the price of petrol. Under Labor's proposals, unless they can come up and explain what they are going to do, every time someone goes to fill up at the bowser, they will be paying 40c a litre. I have a car that takes about 70 litres to fill it up. That would cost me $28 extra in carbon tax under the Labor Party's policy. This is what the economy is facing. On Labor's other policies to get to this target, we know they talked about having new emissions standards. The Australian Automobile Association has warned this can only increase the price of new vehicles. Increasing the price of new vehicles simply means that people will hold on to their older cars for longer, making roads less safe, adding to the cost of every single household budget. Labor's target is 105 grams of CO2 for every kilometre. To put that into some context, our current average fleet is 188 grams per kilometre. To give you an idea of what it would take to get down to 105, a Mini Cooper has 125 grams of CO2 per kilometre, and the tiny Holden Spark, a two-door, would still be above Labor's target, at 136 grams per kilometre. I may be wrong, but it is time that Labor spelt out what their policies are, how they're going to do it and what carbon taxes they are going to add to the price of petrol so voters know. (Time expired) Biosecurity 77 19:50 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson As we approach the Christmas period, many of us will put in our orders for fresh prawns to add to the Christmas table. The great Australian tradition of throwing a prawn or two on the barbie will be well and truly underway this summer. If your household's anything like mine, you have to peel the ones you intend to eat yourself; you shouldn't leave it to someone else. But that's a story for another day. This is a timely reminder for all of us to order our Australian prawns, not only to support local business but to protect our waterways and the Australian seafood industry. In Australia, frozen imported prawn meat carries a label that says 'not to be used for bait', and there's a very important reason for that. This is because these prawns are produced in an environment where the white spot virus exists. White spot is highly contagious and lethal to crustaceans. Overseas, it has reduced prawn farm activity by up to 40 per cent. In its worst cases, it's wiped out entire populations of prawns in farms in days. The virus isn't dangerous to humans, and it's killed when the prawn is cooked, but the Aussie tradition of putting a green prawn on a hook and throwing a line in puts our waterways and our industry at great risk. Australia has been hooked before. In 2017, a high number of diseased prawns entered and were sold in Australia. The white spot virus was then detected in Moreton Bay, contributing to the biggest biosecurity breach in recent decades. The Australian Prawn Farmers Association accused the federal department of agriculture of dropping the ball following the revelations. A study at the time revealed that an incredible 71 per cent of imported green prawns carried the white spot virus. These imported prawns infected Australian wild prawns and prawn farms, so the minister for agriculture banned them. Then the affected Australian wild prawning areas and prawn farms were slapped with a ban as well. Meanwhile, the ban on the very source of the white spot, the imported prawns, was lifted, but the ban on our Australian prawns remained. In what universe does that make any sense? In the absence of a reliable government policy, the Australian prawn industry decided to act. Across a four-year period, the Seafood Cooperative Research Centre facilitated the voluntary collection of marketing contributions for the Australian Prawn Farmers Association and the Australian Council of Prawn Fisheries. It funnelled the funds into its very successful Love Australian Prawns campaign, which not only encouraged consumers to support our domestic fishers—or prawners, I should say; I'll be corrected by prawners in my electorate on that one—but also raised awareness of the scourge of white spot. We know there is great demand for uncooked prawns in restaurants and in food service. According to the Australian Wild Prawns website, of the 30,000 tonnes of prawns imported each year to the end of 2016, a total of 10,000 tonnes were uncooked, 7,000 tonnes were marinated and 13,000 tonnes were cooked, crumbed or battered—whatever way you like them. But there is an enormous risk associated with allowing green prawns into our waterways or inadequately disposing of the shells and heads or any part of their waste. I raise the issue because it is one that affects my community, and it's timely to just put out this warning and reminder to people. My electorate of Paterson is home to native fishing and aquaculture industries, and I've heard from many of my constituents about this topic. But I want to talk about the former member for Paterson, the very wise Bob Horne, who was also my science teacher at school. He wrote to me just recently about this, and he said: 'Meryl, white spot has the potential still to wipe out our entire prawn industry. We must keep Australia clean and green'. Well said, Bob. Good on you—as always, some words of wisdom from a former member for Paterson. Keep our waterways safe and our seafood industry thriving this Christmas. Buy Aussie prawns before you buy anything else, but, if you do decide to buy imported prawns, please don't use them as bait. And don't forget: you have to peel what you intend to eat. Happy Christmas. Bowman Electorate: Hospitals, Roads 78 19:55 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman Obviously, the seat of Bowman, on the outer metro fringe of Brisbane, and hugging the Moreton Bay islands, presents significant but also unique infrastructure challenges. We're deeply concerned about the quality of water transport and also the main roads to our CBD, as are many outer metropolitan seats. There's nothing unusual about our hospital, Redland Hospital, except that in recent data, while we have mailouts to letterboxes around the electorate talking about cuts by the coalition, it's in fact the state Labor government that reduced funding to Redland Hospital by about $40 million last year. This is part of the give and take arrangement in a Commonwealth-state arrangement, where additional federal funding of $83 million should have led to a dollar-for-dollar arrangement and an increase. But, instead, the state government has taken the opportunity to reduce funding to the metro south hospital area by around $40 million. It's money we have to get back. Redland Hospital is just one of five hospitals in the metro south area, so it's hard to know where the money has been taken from in metro south and, of course, the federal government doesn't know where the $83 million of Commonwealth activity investment is actually directed. But, clearly, at Redland we're at crisis point. QEII and Logan Hospital have been seen as comparable hospitals in our region. QEII and Redland are most in need of urgent infrastructure upgrade. Parking at Redland has become an almost impossible task. Throughout the day it can often take half an hour of driving around for frail and often older residents to find a car park. With the recent visit of the Queensland government to Redland, what we saw taken, with the one hand, was $40 million from metro south. The return that we got with the visit of Health Minister Steven Miles last week was one birth tub, one hoist, four beds in the emergency department and a feasibility study into parking at the hospital. The whole thing added up to barely $2 million and it represents just a fraction of what has been taken out by the state Labor government. It's hard to make parking a priority at a hospital, but it's also not that hard to ask the private sector to do a feasibility study for you, when, in the end, most of these hospital car parks are run by the private sector. It surely would take a couple of weeks to do that study, but instead what we have is a delay of up to six to 12 months while a half million dollar feasibility study is carried out. Redland Hospital needs the parking, it needs the upgrades and it needs an MRI. In fact, my entire region has a supply area of around 250,000 people, all relying on one partially licensed MRI. That's simply inadequate for that area. It is all right to be relatively close to the city and still have either very limited or overrun public infrastructure and an MRI licence—either to the hospital, where they can look after in-patients, or nearby—is absolutely critical. The other large infrastructure in the outer metro area is the three or four arterial connections that we have to Brisbane. At that level what we have are Rickett and Green Camp Roads, which run through the electorate of Bonner. They've had a $3 million upgrade through the federal government, working with the Brisbane City Council. That's great news. It was halfway there last week, with the traffic switchover occurring on 23 November. It is great to see the work happening. But, again, it's the only work that we're actually seeing in the entire electorate. It is actually federally funded. These other state roads that supply the needs of Redland residents are simply lying idle. We have the suburb of Redland Bay, with a population of nearly 10,000 people, with not a single two-lane road out. It must be the largest community in Queensland that you can drive out of on a one-lane road only. There are one-lane roads in all directions and they are completely blocked up. In the last two state elections it has been the LNP that has committed to double-lane the roads. Labor has managed to win the state election without making any commitment. That's unfortunate for Redland Bay. Instead, what we had was Labor scurrying around trying to find another road to upgrade. At last November's election, they guaranteed to fund a Victoria Point by-pass plan. Before the election that was a by-pass, but straight after the election it was just a feasibility study. This is a constant refrain: funding a feasibility study when in fact you're not going to fund the road upgrade. All that money from developer contributions is actually sitting in the bank at local government level, but we just don't have the wit locally to turn that into a two-lane road running each way. For our fast-growing parts around metropolitan Brisbane, this work needs to start happening. We have had a Labor state government that for too long has been a government that knows no better. It's time they start placing infrastructure as a priority, for the sake of the population of Bowman. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 79 NOTICES

Tuesday, 4 December 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Lucy Wicks) took the chair at 16:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 80 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Gorton Young Leaders Awards 80 16:00 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton It is with great pride that I announce the winners of the 2018 Gorton Young Leaders Awards. I established these awards in 2009 to recognise young local people who've shown exceptional commitment to public service, specifically through involvement in voluntary work, student leadership or community service. This year, nine high schools across the electorate of Gorton participated in these awards. The 2018 winners of the Gorton Young Leaders Awards are: at Kurunjang College, Ms Nashay Anderson and Mr Owen Samson; at Staughton College, Nicole Nicholas and Benjamin Mulheran; at Lakeview Senior College, Emma Taylor and Jose Ong; at Copperfield College, Ms Naba Baro; at Melton Secondary College, Winona Duka and Jacob Azzopardi; at Melton Christian College, Anthony Higgins and Victoria Hirt; at Catholic Regional College, Melton, Chloe Laurel and Boden Mugridge; at Gilson College, Olivia Durbin and Kenny Kha Tran; and at Southern Cross Grammar, Kate Vukoja. These young men and women have shown excellent public service or voluntary work. They've been leaders in their schools, and it is up to the schools as to who are rewarded with this acknowledgement. The fact is that, each year, we find that there are many young people doing some remarkable things in our community. I think it's fair to say young people get a raw deal—too often publicly and, indeed, in the media—where people focus on the things that are perhaps not as admirable. And yet the contribution, the philanthropy, the volunteerism, the generosity and the leadership of young people are often neglected. These young students—these potential local champions of the future who may continue to work in their community or go beyond that to find themselves in this place or leading the way in other pursuits—deserve recognition. I'm very proud to be associated with them. I'm glad that these awards have been dedicated to young people in these schools for almost a decade. In fact, this is the 10th occasion where the awards have been provided. We deserve to acknowledge young people, and I do so. I look forward to meeting them. We're going to gather sometime, hopefully before Christmas, so I can personally thank them, thank the teachers and principals, and thank their parents for a marvellous example of how important it is to be a positive contributor to the community. (Time expired) Gibbs, Mrs Cecelia May, MBE 80 16:03 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney Today I rise to recognise a very special birthday: the 100th birthday of Snugglepot and Cuddlepie. May Gibbs's most iconic work was published in November 1918 and has never been out of print in the hundred years since. Generation after generation of Australian children have grown up on the wonders of one of the best-known and most iconic Australian children's books our nation has ever produced. The launch of the Bush Babies books coincided with the early years of the Australian nation and celebrated a country that was just 17 years old at the time. Important works published in that period include Selected Poems of Henry Lawsonby Henry Lawson, Swinging the Lead and Moving On by Banjo Paterson, St Tom and the Dragon by Ethel Turner and The Magic Pudding by Norman Lindsay. These are texts that described and, more importantly, defined our new nation. They gave us a voice, an identity, and created a connection with our unique environment, and would serve as a strong foundation for the enduring and lasting love that so many of us have for this great land of ours. At the time, they represented a break from the past, when children would rely solely on British or European tales set in an environment far from their own experience. I am proud that the lower North Shore of Sydney was to be May Gibbs's home for much of her life. Born in Sydenham, Kent, in 1877, May immigrated to Australia with her family in 1881 at four years of age. The Gibbs family went out to the country, first farming in South Australia followed by two years at a Harvey cattle station. It was during these impressionable years that May observed the beauty of the Australian bush. May has been quoted as saying: It's hard to tell, hard to say. I don't know if the bush babies found me or I found the little creatures. Following the publication of Tales of Snugglepot and Cuddlepie, May followed on with epic stories such as Little Obelia, Nuttybub and Nittersing, Chucklebud and Wunkydoo, Scotty in Gumnut Land, Mr & Mrs Bear, Prince Dandelion, Gumnut Babies and Little Ragged Blossom. It wasn't just May Gibbs's mastery of prose that brought her genuine acclaim. It was also her unique genius as an illustrator and artist. Her artwork was inspired and brought her characters to life. So ingrained and embedded in our culture are they that many of them are instantly recognisable to millions of Australians. So many of us fell in love with Snugglepot and Cuddlepie in their quest to see a human, marvelled at the adventures of Nuttybub, and trembled in fear for the sad, shy little blossom Narnywos, held captive by the Bad Banksia Men. Neutral Bay is lucky to have Nutcote, the beautiful harbourside home of May Gibbs. When it faced the threat of redevelopment many years ago, such was the love for May Gibbs and her legacy that the community reaction ensured it was saved. The home is now a wonderful museum run by North Sydney Council. Here's to May Gibbs and her fabulous creations! May she forever live in our hearts. Corio Electorate 81 16:06 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio As I reflect back on 2018 and think of all its political drama, these words seem poignant: I believe passionately that politics is for people. It is not an elite sport played only by members of parliament. These words were spoken by former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull back in November 2004 in his first speech to the Australian parliament as the member for Wentworth. It's increasingly apparent that Australians in 2018 have made a decision to no longer sit on the sidelines of politics but speak loudly and proudly about what they want for their towns, cities, states and nation. From students taking time out from school to protest the government's lack of climate change policy through to our North Geelong business leaders banding together with local schools across Corio to work towards a solution to the northern suburbs youth employment crisis, 2018 has been a year when people have opted to get involved and speak about how they want their country to act and behave at a local, state, federal and even global level. In many respects, Geelong had a year full of success. The Geelong port secured a 25-year, $130 million agreement with Boral cement to construct a new clinker-grinding and cement facility at our port. Avalon Airport finally landed an international airline after many years of hard work and support by governments of both persuasions. Beaver Energy launched its aviation business in Geelong, which will see Geelong refine fuel at more than 50 airports around the country. Deakin University has continued to secure local grants and is expanding its advanced research and technology projects out across Geelong. These all tell a story about the huge steps forward Geelong took this year, which demonstrates the confidence our businesses have in their people and the city's economic future. The year 2018 also saw the Cats secure a place in the finals. The team at GMHBA stadium have commenced work on its final stage of redevelopment, which will cement Geelong's reputation as a sporting and major events powerhouse. Geelong in 2018 can proudly boast it's home to 17,000 small to medium-sized enterprises. Greater Geelong is quickly becoming home to lifestyle-savvy entrepreneurs and business owners. Our city this year continued to build up its credentials as a connected and innovative city. Later in the year, the people of Geelong spoke clearly at the ballot box. They rejected fear and populist politics and insisted that state government needed to invest in better infrastructure, health care, schools and more jobs in our city. They voted for Christine Cousins, Darren Cheeseman, Lisa Neville, Gayle Tierney and John Eren to do exactly that. Of course, the revolving door of the Prime Minister's office made yet another rotation this year. In 2018, it is beyond clear that Australians expect better from their federal government. Malcolm Turnbull was dislodged from his position as Prime Minister by the Liberal party room. They voted for change. But I passionately believe that politics is for the people. They will also get a chance to have their say in a few short months, and they always have the final say. Mackellar Electorate: Pittwater Road Clearways 81 16:09 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Earlier this year, RMS proposed the introduction of clearways on Pittwater Road, in both directions, from 6 am to 7 pm on weekdays and from 9 am to 6 pm on weekends. While RMS may have good intentions, the proposed clearways would have a huge adverse impact on local communities, businesses and jobs running along the coast of the Northern Beaches. There are hundreds of small businesses along Pittwater Road which all depend on on-street parking for a significant amount of their patronage. Cafes, supermarkets, stores and surf lifesaving clubs—like Stay Grounded, Collaroy Books, IGA X-press, Ocean Bakehouse, the South Narrabeen Surf Life Saving Club, and hundreds more—not only create approximately 5,000 local jobs; they also form an integral part of our local beach culture. The proposed clearways would not only throttle business along the beaches; they would affect the use of the beach itself. Every Sunday, 300 Nippers train on Collaroy Beach, and surf lifesaving volunteers often rely on on-street parking so that they can undertake their patrols without constantly having to move their car. It is simply ill-considered to introduce these clearways in light of inadequate parking alternatives. The strength of feeling in my community against this proposal is palpable. On 28 October, more than 500 community members attended a protest rally at Collaroy to send RMS a message. Communities along the beaches are not unreasonable. We are extremely fair, and willing to accept some changes. There is a strong view that the clearways that are already in effect during peak hours adequately ease congestion without compromising parking availability. The important campaign has been extremely visible in Mackellar, with more than 4,000 community members signing my petition against the proposed clearways. It was a pleasure to join with community advocates and local business owners to present the petition to the New South Wales minister for roads, Melinda Pavey, and RMS executives at a recent meeting to discuss the proposed clearways. I'm grateful to the minister for taking the time to hear our concerns and I'm pleased that she's undertaken to not make any decision for at least six months and until such time as RMS has reviewed all submissions. I look forward to a positive outcome being reached which is not detrimental to local communities and businesses. I thank everyone who has expressed their concerns. The fight is not over, so please continue to sign my petition which is available on my website at jasonfalinski.com.au. McEwen Electorate: Disability Services 82 16:12 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen I recently wrote to the minister for social services about an issue that hits home for so many residents across the electorate of McEwen. The National Disability Insurance Agency and Early Childhood Early Intervention are essential services for families all over Australia and in communities throughout McEwen. In 2019, the NDIS will finally be rolled out across parts of McEwen, specifically reaching the Mitchell Shire Council. Intereach, who are currently delivering the service to the Goulburn Valley and Macedon Ranges, will be partnering with the NDIA to provide the same services in Mitchell Shire. I welcome the contribution that they make. However, a decision has been made to establish their business in Seymour. Currently, Intereach has an office in Shepparton and is offering support from the Seymour medical service while they find a permanent office. However, the residents of Seymour have already been accessing NDIA services through the established offices just up the road in Shepparton. We, as a community, are very concerned about the decision of where to locate the new NDIA hub for the Mitchell Shire, especially when it comes to early childhood services. The population of southern Mitchell towns, like Wallan, Kilmore and Beveridge, is booming with young families who are making the region home in unprecedented numbers. This means that southern Mitchell has an above-average proportion of children between the ages of zero and six. Our region is growing fast and the opportunities are endless, but the government's subpar performance in infrastructure and services means they are not growing with us. Most of the residents of Mitchell Shire access work, school, shopping, medical services and social engagements in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, generally choosing not to take the 50-minute drive up the road to Seymour. I've heard from countless young families and parents who don't know where to turn for local support. They're spending precious time and money and experiencing stress in driving the long distances required to access the services for their kids. Those two hours a day on the road add another layer of burden onto families doing their best to support their kids to grow and to learn. Data from the ABS and the DHS shows that the majority of people with disability are in the south of Mitchell Shire. With the rapid growth in our region, that number is set to increase and increase rapidly. Meanwhile, participation in the north stagnates. Southern Mitchell has a greater need for disability support pension services, which is obvious just by looking at the numbers. In Seymour, around 476 residents are accessing the DSP, compared to almost 1,000 residents accessing the DSP in southern Mitchell Shire. The ECEI needs to be based where young families and large numbers of children are. That is plain to see. It is in the south of Mitchell Shire. We've got to continue to fight against this government because of its failure with the NDIA, particularly through the hapless minister and parliamentary secretary, who have yet to respond to community concerns. We need to make sure that we get the best opportunity for our families and make sure the minister actually responds to this decision and starts helping the people in our community who need help the most. Farrer Electorate: Drought 82 16:16 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise today to highlight how the drier-than-normal weather conditions in my electorate of Farrer are rapidly making a significant impact in the worst possible way. Last Thursday Australia's largest and most important producer of rice, SunRice, announced a cut of some 100 jobs from local operations in the communities of Leeton and Deniliquin. This is around 20 per cent of the company's entire local workforce. The reason is the critical failure of the 2019 rice crop due to very low water allocation and high water prices. For the benefit of the metro based members of the Chamber, I should explain that, while a lack of rainfall will always affect farming and agricultural output, it is how the water we do have is managed that really impacts during a time like this. Right now, general water allocations through the Murray River system are at zero per cent. It's been this way since the start of the growing season. SunRice is a brand name, but its growers are small, family owned and operated businesses. Their employees are locals with families and mortgages and Christmas just around the corner. These local growers can only survive on water they may have already banked or kept over from previous years. Unfortunately this is not enough to cover the forward season. In the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, where the Leeton mill operates, at seven per cent of entitlement, allocations are not much better. SunRice is a good company and, when it does rain, will no doubt be back in full force. But its predicament highlights the widespread problem across my electorate, with multiple workers being let go from farming operations because rainfall during the spring growing season did not arrive. In August this year I pleaded for common sense in water management ahead of the intensifying drought, backing the call from irrigators in the mid-Murray to borrow stored environmental water to save their failing winter crops. At that time, we had a small window to prevent some of the carnage. The proposal was a short-term loan of up to 100 gigalitres in water from the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. This pitch was supported by many and ridiculed by some. Perhaps inevitably, it ran into a wall of bureaucracy between the Commonwealth and the states—environmentalists versus those who produce our food and fibre. On Friday week the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council will meet in Melbourne to tick off on the next stages of the Basin Plan. There to meet the ministers will be a large group of people from the Deniliquin and mid-Murray area. These are local people, farmers, who are still attempting to manage their operations with a zero allocation, not just this year but also quite probably next year. They will be there to remind us that decisions taken at the board table have real impacts on the people I represent. I simply ask those ministers around the table: take the time to listen to their stories, because the very future of many communities in my electorate depends on exactly what you do and the decisions you take. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:19 to 16:32 Lyons Electorate: St Vincent de Paul Society 83 16:32 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons In my electorate tomorrow, in Bridgewater, more than 100 people will gather for the annual Dining with Friends Christmas dinner. Unfortunately, this year I can't be there in person but I will be there in Christmas spirit. Dining with Friends is run by Vinnies and it occurs every month in Bridgewater. There are similar events elsewhere in my electorate, notably Oatlands, and across other electorates in Tasmania. Every month, members of the Bridgewater and Brighton communities can turn up for a good healthy feed, prepared by an amazing crew of volunteers, coordinated by Natalie Klug from Vinnies. There's no set price. People pay what they can afford. Sometimes it's $5; sometimes it's $10; if the power bill has come in or the rent is to be paid, they can enjoy a three-course meal for as little as $2, surrounded by other members of their community. Not only does Dining with Friends feed the body, it feeds the soul. I'm proud to support Dining with Friends, and I volunteer when I can, putting on an apron, serving food, doing dishes and collecting dirty plates. It's a great way to stay connected with my community. But my efforts pale in comparison to that of volunteers like Annie, Robin, Jane and Rick, as well as some local nuns—many originally from the Philippines—and local Scouts and Cubs, who serve the food with great enthusiasm, I must say, pushing those trolleys around like race cars! I would like to quickly like to mention Dave William, who died suddenly a little over a year ago. Dave was a champion of Dining with Friends, and his humour and dedication are much missed. It has not been the same without Dave, but his friends and his loved ones still turn up to do their bit for this fantastic Bridgewater community. Tomorrow's event is going to be pretty special—fresh seafood, delicious hams, roasted vegetables, entree and dessert, all dished up with love and care. Everything being served tomorrow has been bought with donations, and I'd like to say a special thank you to those who have contributed: Dale Richards from Norske Skog; Barbara McGregor from Tassal; Edwin Batt, the deputy mayor of Southern Midlands Council; Labor senators Carol Brown and Anne Urquhart; Rebecca White, leader of the Tasmanian Labor party; Craig Farrell, the Labor MLC for Derwent; and Labor Party members Frances Hillier and Darren Clark. Where would Australia be without Vinnies and the incredible work it does for some of the most vulnerable people in our community? I can't be at the Christmas dinner in Bridgewater, but I do look forward to attending the Vinnies charity fundraising barbecue here at parliament tomorrow at noon. I encourage all members of this place to get along and support this incredible organisation. If I don't get another chance this week, in case I'm booted unceremoniously from question time, may I wish all in this place a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Continuous Glucose Monitors 83 16:35 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney I have received contact from a number of my constituents about continuous glucose monitors—CGMs. People with type 1 diabetes must monitor their glucose levels day and night. CGMs do that, continuously recording a person's glucose level and setting off an alarm if it drops below a certain point. These are life-saving devices, but they can be expensive for families and young people. This government has announced it will expand the free access to glucose monitoring devices for pregnant women, children and more adults with type 1 diabetes, saving people up to $7,000 a year. This investment of more than $100 million in additional funding over the next four years will ensure free glucose monitoring devices are available to over 37,000 people with type 1 diabetes. This government has already made glucose monitoring products available to young people under 21 with type 1 diabetes. Nearly 9½ thousand young Australians are already using these important free devices. With this funding boost, CGMs will bring peace of mind to more Australians with type 1 diabetes, improving their quality of life now and into the future. Other measures for people with type 1 diabetes delivered by this budget include lower patient co-payments for blood glucose test strips, lower co-payments for insulin pump consumables for concession card holders, and expanding the insulin pump program for children of low-income families. This government is committed to giving all Australians better access to life-saving, life-improving medicines, treatment and prevention. Correspondence with one of my constituents best describes the difference in patients' lives in one family with CGMs: 'Thank you for funding the life-saving capacity of CGM technology for Australians under 21 with type 1 diabetes,' he wrote. Even in a few short months we know that those who have experienced CGM say it's changed their life. One constituent continued, 'My wife was hospitalised due to complications arising from her type 1 diabetes. If she had been on a CGM we would have avoided that traumatic experience. My wife and I trialled with it and she has already seen a huge improvement in her health and her results.' So thank you to the health minister for the $100 million committed by this government to expand free access to glucose monitoring devices. As our economy continues to improve under responsible economic management, I'm fully supportive of any opportunity this government has to add fully funded CGMs for adults with type 1 diabetes to the National Diabetes Service Scheme. I want to make sure that even more patients have access— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:38 to 16:50 Dobell Electorate: Stronger Communities Program 84 16:50 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I would like to acknowledge some of the many community groups in my electorate who have been successful in securing grants under round 4 of the Stronger Communities Program. I would also like to wish those whose applications are still being assessed every success. Thank you to Kate Broadhurst, Central Coast Citizen of the Year, and the panel. These grants will help boost community groups and their work in our region on the Central Coast. The Wyong Neighbourhood Centre marks 40 years of service to our community in 2019, and this grant will be put towards the upgrade of their much-needed Wyong community shed. Central Coast ARAFMI will be able to go ahead with much-needed upgrades to the Yakkalla recreation centre at Bateau Bay. Yakkalla is close to my heart. It's where my late father's younger onset dementia group, YODSS, meets every Friday. Thank you, Rhonda, for providing social and recreational programs for people and families whose lives have been affected by mental illness. Berkeley Vale Rural Fire Brigade was damaged during the storms of January 2016 and started refurbishing this year. This grant will be put towards a community space and providing laundry facilities and a place to feed people during emergencies. The Country Women's Association of New South Wales, Tuggerah Lakes, will plant a community garden with raised garden beds to make sure everyone can access the garden and take part in planting and picking fresh produce, such as herbs and vegies, for the community. Gosford Regional Community Services will expand the much-loved community garden at Wyoming, installing all-weather outdoor cooking facilities to hold workshops on growing fresh produce and host community events. Jopuka Productions is a leading not-for-profit youth arts company on the Central Coast. The grant will provide a touring package of technical equipment for mobile theatre productions, bringing Jopuka Productions, such as Gaybies, to a wider audience in a range of venues. As a pharmacist, I was delighted to join Kanwal Public School during National Science Week STEM in Schools. This grant will support the P&C to purchase IT equipment for students to better access the digital technologies component of the science curriculum. Tacoma Public School P&C will provide a sunshade over their play equipment for sun-safe play, and The Entrance Baptist Church will install children's playground equipment and a half basketball court for their community. Wyoming Public School P&C will build a commemorative paved area to mark its 50th anniversary next year, while providing a safe surface for students and community groups. Wyong Men's Shed will replace woodworking equipment to provide a safe environment for members to acquire new skills and help the community groups with their projects, working shoulder to shoulder. Autism Central Coast will construct a 'boys shed', a social space for males aged 10 to 22 to learn life skills and make new friends, and Wyongah Progress Association will install air conditioning at the Wyongah Progress community hall, one of the only community owned and community funded halls in our region. In closing, these projects will go a long way towards helping those who help others in our community. Wide Bay Electorate: Stronger Communities Program 85 16:53 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Wide Bay has once again seen the benefits of the Liberal-National government's Stronger Communities Program in 2018. These local grants are helping some of our most important local organisations continue to do what they do best—helping our community. Noosa's volunteer coastguard is being assisted with $3,500 for new equipment, allowing it to rescue flooded boats, fight fires on the sea and deliver training programs. We gave over $17,000 to help develop a museum complex for the Maryborough Military Aviation Museum Association, commemorating those who served at RAAF Base Maryborough. The amazing organisation Sunshine Butterflies was also given just over $17,000 to help them further develop their family centre facility, and I congratulate Leanne Walsh and her team for their amazing efforts. Thanks to our $4,800 contribution, the South Burnett First Aid Volunteers will be able to add disabled parking and wheelchair access to their Murgon training centre. Almost $18,000 will help Maryborough's popular FoodBasket service to purchase a new truck so they can continue to supply groceries to those in need and help our local people. We've helped out the Tin Can Bay RSL, covering half of the $8,000 installation cost of the solar panels at their citizens' memorial hall. At the Tewantin-Noosa RSL we've contributed $5,000 to fund a memorial recognising the service of veterans within the community and reinforcing the Anzac legacy. The Cooloola Coast Medical Transport service needed two vehicles replaced, so we helped out with $15,000, helping them to continue to connect people with their medical appointments. We've contributed $2,500 to the Gympie Chamber of Commerce to buy needed equipment like screens, speakers and microphones for their monthly functions. Through the Stronger Communities Program, Maryborough's riding for the disabled association has been provided with over $17,000 for an arena rake, letting them create a perfectly level surface to provide a higher standard of safety for the kids. We supplied half of the $22,000 required to buy a new ATV for the Peregian Beach Surf Life Saving Club, helping them to improve response times and keep the beach safe. We helped out Vinnies in Noosaville with over $7,500 for a solar power system. Hope Reins was granted nearly half of the $40,000 required to install the new hay shed, helping them to continue to offer their free programs to the Gympie community. Finally, we helped the Tin Can Bay Fishing Club with over $2,500 to cover their new security system. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 85 CONDOLENCES Bush, President George Herbert Walker 85 16:56 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon George Herbert Walker Bush, otherwise known as George Bush Snr, was the 41st President of the United States of America. He held that role from 1989 to 1993. He died at 94 years of age on 30 November—a great innings. His marriage was also an epic innings: he was married to Barbara for 73 years. She passed earlier this year. President Bush had a reputation as a decent and honourable man. He enlisted in the US Navy on his 18th birthday, in 1942. The Second World War was underway. He became a naval aviator. As we heard, his aircraft was downed and he was recovered by submarine. After the war he was very successful in the oil business in Texas and entered politics as a member of the House of Representatives for the state of Texas. He was an ambassador to the United Nations and a director of the CIA. President Bush visited Australia in 1991 to 1992 and addressed a joint sitting of this parliament. He said that that year, 1992, marked the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea. He said: We remember the courage and the fighting skill of the Australian and American naval forces. Their valour spared Australia from invasion and stemmed the tide of totalitarianism. In Darwin, in my electorate, we commemorate the Battle of the Coral Sea every year at the USS Peary memorial. In that same speech, President Bush went on to say how Australia and the United States had stood together in several conflicts since World War II, particularly mentioning the then very recent First Gulf War. He said: In the Persian Gulf we stood together against Saddam Hussein's aggression. Indeed, the first two coalition partners in a joint boarding exercise to enforce the United Nations resolutions were Australians from the HMAS Darwin and Americans from the USS Brewerton. I was speaking to one of my constituents in the last couple of days about President Bush's passing. I often like to convey, through this parliament, the sentiments of members of my electorate. One of them said that his memory of President Bush was of his 'calm, measured, impeccable response to the Kuwait invasion', and that George Bush Sr was 'a true statesman'. One very positive outcome of our continuing friendship with the United States has been the Australian American Leadership Dialogue, which was founded in 1992 by Phil Scanlan with the support of then President Bush. I was privileged to participate in the most recent dialogue, earlier this year, visiting President Bush's home state of Texas—Dallas and Fort Worth—and then going on to Washington, DC. Darwin is the capital of the north—the military capital of the north, if I can say so—and home to the US Marine Rotational Force, which, on rotation, is presently about 1,600 marines but is expected to grow. We find ourselves in different strategic circumstances to those faced by George Bush Sr and his generation; however, there are some similarities with the circumstances in which the former president lived. Heightened tension between the US and China, and some geopolitical turbulence in the Indo-Pacific underscore not only the critical importance of our alliance with the United States of America but also the importance of that alliance as it pertains to our security and prosperity. Our strategic environment will continue to be shaped, even as this great generation passes on, by our relationship. Can I just say in closing that I think one of the legacies post the Cold War is the creation of the 'coalition of the willing', which I think was one of the greatest examples of statecraft. Former President Bush Sr did not overreach but worked with the international community to set an optimistic tone for how we would go forward in multilateral ways to make the world a safer place. I think it is important that we pause to remember George Herbert Walker Bush Sr, 41st President of the United States. May he rest in peace with Barbara. Honourable members: Hear, hear! 17:03 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Hear these words of the late President George HW Bush: We are a nation of communities … a brilliant diversity, spread like stars, like a thousand points of light in a broad and peaceful sky. What brilliant perception. President Bush led a truly diverse and yet truly strong nation. He saw the strength in that diversity and he delivered the leadership to draw people together into the common cause. His leadership was based on his personal strength; it was unmistakable. This man of great humility never spent much time reflecting on himself, or his own background as a World War II combat pilot shot down from his burning plane, ejected and then miraculously rescued. Back home his service to people around him continued. As Chairman of the Republican Party in Harris County in 1963, he ran for the US Senate. He was not elected; he never countenanced that as a failure, but rather as an experience. Barely two years later he was elected to the US House of Representatives. He served in crucial roles—US Ambassador to the United Nations in 1971, US envoy to China from 1974 to 1975 and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1976. The strength of character shone like a beacon again when he sought his party's nomination for the presidency but lost to his opponent, Ronald Reagan. But again he refused to walk away. He was to become Reagan's Vice President, working with him as a team to see the world-changing demise of communism and reunification of Germany. Indeed, it was during George HW Bush's presidency that the Cold War came to its end. In fact, we can be quite precise about this. On 12 February 1989 the negotiations drew to a climax when President Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev held their first meeting of Bush's presidency in the harbour of Valletta, Malta, to discuss nuclear disarmament and the strengthening of Soviet-American trade relations. Both leaders announced that the Cold War was effectively over. Bush was the servant of the people around him as a lifelong calling, not simply for his term as President. A most wonderful example of this was after the devastation wrought on Louisiana and Mississippi by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Bush joined forces with Bill Clinton, who had defeated him in the 1992 election, to establish the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund, raising donations well beyond $100 million in its first few months. For President Bush, it was always about the other person. Last weekend, marking the passing of this great man, a former staffer recalled that, if the script of a speech used the personal pronoun too often, he would get out a red pen, circle the 'I's and notate it with, 'Too many'. He felt that, in a democracy, the word to be used was 'we', not 'I'. I was to have the great opportunity to meet George Bush Sr. It was during a District 9700 Rotary International group study exchange tour to Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts in 1993. There we were assembled outside what they called the 'Summer White House', at Kennebunkport in Maine, a wonderful historic fishing town. I was there with the late Simon Terry—he was our leader; Andrew Hamilton and David Meiklejohn, with whom I still remain very close friends; Michelle McInness, who was a psychologist at Kapooka army base; and ABC reporter Jackie May. We were all ready to meet the great man, and, as he was walking down the path to greet us, that was the very moment in history that President Clinton decided to have the missile strike against Iraq, and the Secret Service agents, the security men, whisked George Bush away. They thought it was best that he go indoors. He gave us a bit of a wave. We were basically 40 metres from meeting him and having lunch with him and his partner for life, Barbara. It was a missed opportunity but a rare moment to reflect back on at this sad time, this momentous time, as we speak in this chamber about the legacy that he leaves. It is true that the Bush family had accrued wealth. It was wealth derived from courageous business decision-making and from sheer hard work. The family could have been satisfied to have made this massive contribution, with their patriarch rising to arguably the position of greatest responsibility across the world. But the family ethos embedded in the life of the 41st President of the United States was one of service—service above self, you could say, which is of course the Rotary motto. So it would come as no surprise that one son, Jeb, John Ellis, served as Governor of Florida and another, George W Bush, served as the 43rd President of the US. Each brought their own steely resolve to their responsibilities, but each drew strength from a family who saw beyond themselves and understood the greater good—public service. I'm not recommending that we wish the responsibilities we feel upon our own families. I wouldn't do that. But we do see this utterly remarkable dedication and commitment to the people around them that President George Herbert Walker Bush and his family around him have shown to their nation and to nations across the globe. I started with the words of George HW Bush. Let me conclude also with his words, and they are words that can serve to inspire certainly all of us in this parliament but, more so, offer inspiration to us as a nation: No problem of human making is too great to be overcome by human ingenuity, human energy and the untiring hope of the human spirit. We celebrate the very real contribution that President George HW Bush has made, quite directly, to the quality of life that each of us enjoys today through his untiring energy, his untiring spirit. We commemorate his life. May we all take his example to our hearts. Rest in peace, President George HW Bush. 17:09 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes George Bush Sr, as he is known today, was inaugurated on 20 January 1989, succeeding one of America's greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan. He entered office in a period of change in the world. He witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was President at a time when the potential threat of nuclear war was still very real. In his inaugural address, President Bush used these words: I come before you and assume the Presidency at a moment rich with promise. We live in a peaceful, prosperous time, but we can make it better. For a new breeze is blowing, and a world refreshed by freedom seems reborn; for in man's heart, if not in fact, the day of the dictator is over. The totalitarian era is passing, its old ideas blown away like leaves from an ancient, lifeless tree. A new breeze is blowing, and a nation refreshed by freedom stands ready to push on. There is new ground to be broken, and new action to be taken. Men like George Bush made this world a greater place. The riches and the prosperity that we enjoy today were hard to imagine at the time that former President Bush was born. On behalf of all my constituents in the electorate of Hughes, we send our condolences to George Bush's family and the people of the United States of America. 17:11 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 I thank the honourable member for Hughes. May I just add briefly my comments of condolence to the family of the late President Bush? I was here in this parliament in early 1992 when President George HW Bush addressed the parliament. It was the first formal instituted sitting of parliament in which a visitor such of his stature addressed the parliament. There had been previous occasions, going back over the decades, where others had addressed the parliament, but this was first time that it was formally constituted on that occasion, and so it was a great occasion. I won't repeat the words, but I join with the comments of many other honourable members in relation to the late President Bush. As his son George W Bush put it: The mission was not George H. W. Bush, the mission was: how do we serve the United States? How do we help the United States? How do we make the United States better? Which is very important in establishing a culture that can succeed. I think those words are memorable, they are very true and we can apply them to ourselves and to this country as well. May he rest in peace. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 87 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Veterans 87 17:12 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro Could I take this opportunity to echo the remarks of colleagues on the passing of President Bush Sr. My first operational deployment was actually at the behest of President Bush when he, as my American colleagues would probably say, managed to round up an international posse to go into Somalia to put an end to the genocide and the horrendous loss of life that was going on in Somalia at the time. He was operating in the follow-on years from the first Gulf War, where there was a new optimism about the ability to harness international effort to resolve the world's problems. His leadership in that instance was also something I think we can reflect on positively. I have enormous respect for this man, as a World War II veteran and in every other endeavour of his life. He was a great success in many ways. The only issue I would take is that I do have a personal view about how the first Gulf War was concluded. Having gone back and served in Iraq for a year, from 2003 to 2004, I think there were some issues that the whole coalition of the willing could have done better, but that's for another day. But I do really want to echo my respect for the President and his standard of politics that he set in the US. In moving on to this ministerial statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I would also like to indicate my respect for him, my electoral neighbour in Gippsland. He's also a friend, and I really do appreciate his goodwill and his endeavour in this space. He came into it at short notice, with changes of portfolio responsibilities, but I know his heart is in the right place in what he is attempting to do. There were a lot of good things in the statement that he gave in relation to the veterans space, and it is a good example of the spirit of bipartisanship that pervades this building in our respect for and endeavour to do better by our veterans. It's not always replicated in other areas. I would encourage the Minister for Defence to adopt a more bipartisan tone now he is the Minister for Defence. Often the statements that he makes in relation to the previous Labor government and funding are simply incorrect. I would ask him to think on that. Today I mainly want to reflect on veterans' issues, particularly issues that were mentioned in the statement, such as the Invictus Games. I want to pay tribute to two of my veterans who were at the Invictus Games, a really fantastic initiative of Prince Harry, who himself is a veteran, of course. Ben Farinazzo suffered some really serious injuries as a result of his attempts to come to grips with his PTS. Ben really did us proud and came home with a bag of medals and gold from his powerlifting and indoor rowing. Ruth Hunt, from out at Googong, is a tremendous swimmer. She had life-threatening battles to overcome, and really did us proud with the swag of medals she picked up in the swimming. She went in a number of events and came home with the gold as well. I salute Ben and Ruth for representing not only our nation in uniform but also our region so well at the games. I am glad to see that now we are also all on board with the idea of pursuing a military covenant. I raised that and hoped that the minister would come on board, and he did. Well done to the minister for doing that. In addition, there are lots of initiatives being pursued in the veterans employment space. I would ask the minister to perhaps take a look at the policy that the shadow minister has announced on the transition processes. I think more support is required in that transition process. It is really a critical issue for veterans and ex-service people moving into civilian life. I know how rough that road can be. Certainly some roads are easier than others, but the transition process needs support in the training sphere. It needs support in skilling up our people and helping to manage their careers in the early phases of separation from the ADF. So I would urge the minister to take a look at the package that we propose there. I am also pleased that we were able to get the Senate inquiry into the malarial drugs issue, which is a matter of great concern to a lot of veterans. I was fortunate to have been under the doxycycline regime in all of the missions I went on and so didn't get affected by these later-generation malarial drugs. But there is an issue to be answered there, so I am really pleased that the Senate inquiry is pushing on with that. A lot of veterans also raise with me—and with all of us many times, I know—the issue of bringing the CSC under the royal commission into the banks. Other superannuation organisations were, but they had a lot of issues they wanted to tease out in that. It didn't happen in the end, so I would urge the government to look at other ways to inquire into that issue. Veterans are seriously concerned about this, and we owe it to them to take that concern seriously and investigate it one way or another, even if it didn't come under the royal commission. In meeting with wonderful veterans' advocates, like Richard Stone in my electorate and his colleague, Allan Anforth, they have raised with me serious issues about the quality of advocacy that's available to veterans in tackling the incredibly complex metrics of legislation and regimes that cover different types of service and situations. It really is a very difficult maze for a veteran to navigate. The acronyms MRCA, SRCA and DRCA sound like a weird comedy routine, but it's not funny for our veterans. The challenges of putting together those processes and entering the DVA regime are a bit of a nightmare at times. I would also like it if the suggestions that Richard and Allan have put forward on improving quality of advocacy could be looked at. Allan made submissions to the Senate inquiry on that issue. I would also urge that the Medicare rebate freeze be lifted, because a lot of doctors and veterans have been raising the effect of that on them, particularly in mental health services. That really does need to be looked at again. There are also issues about commemoration raised in the statement. I was really pleased to represent the Leader of the Opposition on 23 November at the 70th anniversary of the Royal Australian Regiment. There were some wonderful old soldiers from the regiment present on that day. It was a very rare trooping of all of the colours—a special moment that anybody who has served will appreciate. It's such a rare event to have all the colours trooped at the same time. It was wonderful to have so many tremendous veterans and heroes of our nation who served in the regiment there that day. There were people like Michael Jeffery—really wonderful people who went on to do other service for our nation, as he did as Governor-General. Also, on the weekend I was at the annual Legacy Christmas lunch at the Roos Club in Queanbeyan. I want to pay special tribute to Jack Sealey, one of our few surviving World War II veterans these days, who had his 94th birthday and managed to be promoted to Senior Legatee within the organisation. I pay tribute to the work of Legacy in our area under the stewardship of Suzanne McInnes. The crew put on a great lunch. It was really a celebration of the wonderful work they've done throughout the year. The Legatees are all outstanding members of our community and are doing wonderful work with their awards and with the Legacy cause. Similarly, we had the RSL Christmas lunch on Sunday. Matt Helm—who's been president for, as some people joked, 'longer than Vladimir Putin'—picked up the reins and really carried forward the cause for veterans, for continuing support for the ADF and for investment in security. He is doing a wonderful job. It was a great gathering in the proud tradition of the veterans we have in our region and their families who support them. I really thank all of the crew at the RSL not only for the wonderful lunch they put on that day but also for all of the work they've done throughout year. It was my privilege to meet, not long ago, with the Partners of Veterans Association of Australia, here in the ACT. We do focus a lot on the veterans, as we should, but some of the burdens of the families are not properly understood. That is where we have to be honest and confront some of the issues that can emerge from service, like domestic violence, self-medication, alcohol abuse and that sort of thing. These women have been through a hell of a lot in many ways. We do have to take seriously the issues that emerge from domestic violence, with safe accommodation and safe housing for them. That is an issue they raised with me. It was a great privilege to meet with them and to be more apprised of some of the nuts-and-bolts issues that the partners of our veterans are facing. I really hope that their voices are heard by the opposition and by the government in the years ahead because we have a whole new generation coming through now. The issue of suicide has obviously come up in the context of Senate inquiries into mental health. I look forward to the further Productivity Commission work that's being done in that mental health space, but we have a long road to go. We have an unacceptable level of suicide of that generation of veterans—my generation—that must be seriously addressed. I commend the statement and commend the work of the shadow minister as well in this space. 17:23 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan Veterans are one of the single most deserving groups within Australia today for it is their service that affords our country the democracy and freedom that we all so often take for granted. I rise to acknowledge and support the minister's statement on the coalition government's commitment to Australian veterans. To commemorate, pay homage, preserve and protect the very lives and memories of our veterans signifies the gratitude we must all pay them. In this year, the 100th anniversary of Armistice, Australians must not be oblivious to the ultimate sacrifice made by fellow country men and women for whom duty and service are of paramount importance. Like other members in this place, I have many relatives, past and present, involved in the ADF. My father was a World War II veteran and also a prisoner of war. My son is a current serving member and my great-grandfather was Australia's longest serving Minister for Defence. With this family involvement, I know all too well the pressures on veterans, their families and the communities in which they live. I'm proud to be part of a government which is caring for Australia's defence personnel. 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 in society. Assisting them to transition from defence to civilian life is a major adjustment. However, 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 dignity for their service, no matter whether it was in conflict or in peacetime. The Department of Veterans' Affairs will provide more than $11 billion in payments and services this year alone, including pensions, income support, compensation, health care, rehabilitation, counselling services—the list continues. I place on record my thanks to DVA, which I know offers an invaluable service, and my office can attest to their efficiency and effectiveness. Australia's veterans come from all walks of life, all ages and all races. No matter their background or their qualifications, they all share one value: the defence and preservation of Australia's freedom, democracy and safety. For this we must all be truly and eternally grateful. The work of the many veterans organisations throughout Australia is truly heartwarming. I would like to take this opportunity to place on record my admiration for the efforts of an organisation well known to many here, Wounded Heroes. Wounded Heroes Association is a national community organisation that was established in 2008 to provide first-response support services for deployed personnel, the wounded and their families. As an emergency crisis provider, Wounded Heroes offers short-term emergency relief payments to individuals and their families. This can mean turning the electricity back on or filling the fridge with food if the family is going through a challenging time. We all know that too often life behind closed doors is very different for many Australians suffering from physical and/or mental health issues. No closer to the truth could this be than for our veterans, who often bear the anguish and torment of deployments. These are not easy fixes, nor in many cases are they ever fixed, but as a government and society we can lessen the burden faced by our veteran community. I believe that we must also assist those who stand behind and support our veterans—their families and their children. The coalition recently announced that we will invest $7.6 million in the Kookaburra Kids defence program to boost their targeted support for children of ex-serving Defence Force members who are experiencing mental health issues due to their service. The Kookaburra Kids defence program was first supported by our government with a $2.1 million injection of funds in a pilot program in New South Wales, the ACT, Queensland and the Northern Territory for 569 children. This extra investment will see the program expand into Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia for 1,750 children. Any support that we can provide to Defence families, especially their children, is definitely a move in the right direction. Through my contact with the CEO of Wounded Heroes, Mr Martin Shaw, I have been told that a lot of emergency response goes to sufferers of PTSD. PTSD does not rest solely with the wounded hero. It also affects smaller heroes, the children, who so often bear the brunt of postdeployment issues. As the sole partner of Exercise Stone Pillow, a sleep-out that highlights the challenges faced by veterans and their families, Wounded Heroes sees firsthand the ease with which veterans fall prey to the physical and mental anguish of their service to our country. The unfortunate realisation is that for many homeless veterans their days are not so jovial and their existence is bleak. But, with the support of organisations like Wounded Heroes and Exercise Stone Pillow, a glimmer of hope can be seen. These days, support never seems to be too far away for our veterans; however, more needs to be done so that no-one falls through the cracks. I have mentioned before in the parliament the role our RSLs play in supporting returned service men and women. Gaythorne RSL, Sherwood-Indooroopilly RSL, Kenmore-Moggill RSL, Toowong RSL and The Gap RSL represent the RSL's presence in my electorate of Ryan; however, countless other organisations across Australia demonstrate the immense pride amongst the Defence family. These organisations help provide support through their financial assistance to the defence community. They provide a local place of remembrance and significant importance to those who have served as well as to the newer generations. As a country, we should never forget those who came before us and fought to give us the Australia we know today. Public commemorations serve as an enduring reminder of the service of our brave Defence men and women, but we should remember their service irrespective of whether it is Anzac Day or Remembrance Day. The lost lives of sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, friends and neighbours who selflessly volunteered to defend the safety and democracy of our great nation will always be immortalised. Politics aside, I encourage all Australians to pay their respects to all three arms of the Australian Defence Force. These veterans past and present are our veterans, Australia's veterans, and heroes all. This Chamber must always remain indebted to the veterans in our communities and their families, some of whom stand among us in this building. 17:30 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the annual statement to parliament on veterans and their families. All Australians owe an enormous debt to our veterans and to their families, who shoulder so much of the burden. We're such a lucky country in so many ways. We're lucky that we live in a country, a nation, where we don't regularly see our defence forces on our suburban streets—or, if you do see an Army vehicle driving down your street, you actually feel proud rather than concerned, as is the case in some countries. We're lucky that we don't see heavily armed Defence personnel routinely patrolling our streets—as I've seen in some other countries—just so we can go about our daily lives safely. We're very lucky, but obviously it's not all about luck. We live so freely in this nation because of the brave and fearless men and women who have served this country and who are still serving this country. It is because they stand ready to defend our freedoms that we have our freedom. Australia owes them so much, but the least we can do for them is to ensure that, when they return from service, we look after them in every way that we can. I'm very proud that Labor has announced that, if elected, a Shorten Labor government would commit to developing a military covenant to ensure that our serving men and women can be in no doubt that we value their service and remain committed to looking after them. A similar covenant exists in the United Kingdom. Labor proposes that the military covenant be signed by the Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister and that, importantly, it would be accompanied by legislation that would mandate regular reporting to the parliament on how we are meeting our commitment to our veterans. This will build on Labor's previous commitment of $121 million to assist veterans in finding and maintaining employment after service. So many of those incredible skills are not being utilised by our civilian workforce. It is particularly important that we assist veterans to transition from military life. Employment after service is an important part of that transition. That transition to civilian life sometimes can be difficult not only for veterans but also for their families. Gaining employment provides structure, engagement with the community and a sense of purpose, as well as, of course, ongoing financial security. Veterans have particular skills that can be valuable to civilian industries. All of the parliamentarians who have participated in the parliamentary placement program would have seen that across the three services—throughout Australia and throughout the world, in fact. Military life, to summarise it, is characterised by regimentation; a severe military disciplinary code, which has a greater onus than for normal civilians; long and irregular working hours; and, for some ADF personnel, long hours of unrelenting boredom and then minutes of fear that can actually live with people for the rest of their lives. They must maintain a high standard of physical fitness and have frequent relocations and separation from family. Politicians in Canberra are mostly fly-in fly-out workers, but we have no idea of what it's like to be away from your family for six months at a time or the strains that come with that and that go onto your partner. It is a tough life, but the ADF does provide unique training and skills. They are skills that are often not immediately identified in civilian employment but, with specific support, can translate to a valuable employment skill base. It is vitally important that our veterans are given the support they need to realise their potential in post-service employment. I recently had the honour of representing the shadow minister for defence at some farewell parades for troops deploying on operations—recently, as part of the Task Group Taji 8 at Gallipoli Barracks. On such parades, the enormity of the sacrifice our troops make is evident, particularly when you see the pride of their partners and families who are present. The troops are farewelled to serve this nation in all other parts of the world and, often, to put themselves in harm's way on behalf of other nations and other people. I pray that they will all be returned safely to their families. Recently I visited the Australian War Memorial, with many other parliamentary colleagues, before Remembrance Day on 11 November to see the 62,000 handcrafted poppies spread on the memorial grounds, sadly representing all of those Australian lives that were lost in the First World War. It was a sombre reminder of the sacrifice our veterans have made for us for over a century and are continuing to make right now. This was especially poignant in this year of the Centenary of Armistice. It is 100 years since the guns finally fell silent on the western front after those years of brutal warfare. It is important that we always remember the sacrifice made by those brave Australian soldiers, sailors and airmen—the ones who did not return home. One of those soldiers was my great-uncle, Private James Alphonsus Morrissy, who died in Belgium on 20 September 1917 at the age of 23. Jim Morrissy came from Deuchar near Allora up near Toowoomba. He was a private in the 9th Australian Infantry Battalion of the Australian Army. I recently attended a last post ceremony for my great-uncle Jim at the Australian War Memorial, which was an incredibly moving service not only for me but also for members of my family—and the public for that matter—who were able to attend. I'll mention in particular my Auntie Pat and my cousins Joey and Catherine, who were there, all of whom are members of the RAAF. My great-uncle's death at the young age of 23, like that of many of those young, brave soldiers who did not return, had an enormous impact on his family back at home. Seeing the letters from his mum, my great-great-grandmother, is still heart-wrenching today. Today I acknowledge the families of all of our current service troops who, no doubt, worry every day about their loved ones who are serving in faraway lands, particularly at times like Christmas, when so many families get together. They're not able to because they're off serving this nation. As a nation, we must value the service of our troops and make sure we support their families both during and after their service. Looking after our veterans and their families should be a covenant that our parliament formally commits to. I won't forget. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 91 COMMITTEES Constitutional Recognition of ATSIP 91 Report 91 17:37 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra by leave—My personal involvement in this debate goes back to 2014 when Damien Freeman and I, as a private citizen, wrote a paper on the proposal to adopt an Australian declaration of recognition and launched an organisation called Uphold & Recognise to encourage constitutional conservatives to play a part in supporting the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I remain committed to constitutional recognition and I'm on record as being a supporter of the voice with a basis in the Constitution. There are some constitutional proposals I could support and others to which I remain opposed. This committee is not about my personal views, though. As we know, constitutional change in Australia is difficult to achieve. In 117 years, only eight out of 44 proposed amendments have succeeded. To change the Constitution, the bar is rightly set high. A referendum must be passed by a majority of the Australian people and a majority of people in a majority of states. No proposal has ever succeeded without strong bipartisan support. The committee was asked to consider the work of the expert panel, the former joint select committee, and the Statement from the Heart of the Referendum Council. As I said in the House, the Statement from the Heart was a major turning point in the debate. Not only did it bring the new element of the voice into the debate but it rejected all proposals for constitutional recognition that had gone before. The rejection of all the previous proposals was a shame because there were proposals that had previously been made that could, in my view, have commanded broad political support. But we acknowledge that at Uluru they seem to have been taken off the table. We note in chapter 4 of the report that the proposals relating to the repeal of section 25 of the Constitution and the rewording of section 51(xxvi) may command a high degree of cross-party support but that these matters were effectively taken out and ruled out at Uluru. At the centre of the Statement from the Heart is the voice. The voice is the matter on which we focused most of the efforts of this committee. The recommendation of the report builds on the work of the interim report of this committee. In that report we raised 100 questions, to which there were some responses but unfortunately not as many as we'd hoped. In the interim report we flagged that the next step in the process towards constitutional recognition would be co-design of the voice, involving 'a process of deep consultations between the Australian government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in every community across the country in order to ensure that the detail of the voice and related proposals are authentic for each community across Australia.' That's what we promised in the interim report and that's what we've delivered in this final report. The future of the voice after the Referendum Council's report was uncertain, but now this joint select committee has confirmed bipartisan support for the concept of the voice. If successfully co-designed, the voice should become a reality. The design of the voice is now a matter for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to work with government to achieve. Ultimately, the form of the voice will emerge from the co-design process, but the lead point is that the voice will be designed with government but by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and adapted for local conditions right across the country. The voice will provide a mechanism for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be consulted and engaged on the policies and laws that affect them. It will provide a forum for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to bring issues to government. Such a process has as its goals better social and economic policy outcomes for our First Nations people. In preparing for co-design, the government and Indigenous people should draw on the eight principles and 21 models of existing and proposed structures, which could form the basis for discussion about the co-design of the voice, which we divined from evidence presented to the committee. The commitment to the voice and the commitment to co-design of that voice are significant steps for the parliament to take. They're significant steps towards a bipartisan and agreed approach to advancing the cause of constitutional recognition. The co-design of the voice is covered in chapter 2 of the report. After the co-design process is complete, the legal form of a voice can then be worked out. It will be much easier to work out the legal form the voice should take once there's clarity on what the voice looks like. Since the interim report, a division of opinion has emerged as to the political tactics that should be used to achieve constitutional recognition. Some have argued that there should be a referendum passed as the first step, while others consider that legislation should be developed to establish the voice by an act of parliament and that, once that's done, the government should proceed to a referendum to entrench the guarantee of a voice in the Constitution. Leaving aside any questions of the need to build further political consensus, it's difficult to proceed to any referendum today on the voice when this committee has received no fewer than 18 different versions of constitutional amendments which might be put at a referendum. Our judgement therefore is that, before the voice proceeds to the next step, the co-design process must successfully have been completed. These matters are discussed in chapter 3. Since the interim report, the committee has heard significant evidence about truth-telling, a matter that was raised in the Statement from the Heart. I think this is perhaps an overlooked part of the report but a very important one. We believe that there's a strong desire among all Australians to know more about the history, traditions and culture of First Nations people and their contact with other Australians, both good and bad. A fuller understanding of our history, including the relationship between black and white Australia, will lead to a more reconciled nation. We've made some recommendations in chapter 6 about how this might be achieved. Unusually for a parliamentary committee, this committee didn't have a chair and a deputy chair but rather was co-chaired by Senator Dodson and myself. As I said in the House, I wanted to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Senator Dodson. The committee wouldn't have functioned as well if the relationship between us hadn't been as open and cooperative as it was, and I want to acknowledge his generosity in sharing his knowledge of Indigenous culture and his experience of Indigenous affairs with me and the other members of the committee. It was a privilege to work with Senator Dodson, as it was with all the other members of the committee. I want to acknowledge the members for Barton, Indi, Groom, Farrer and Wide Bay as well as Senators Duniam, McCarthy, Stoker and Siewert. As my friend the member for Lingiari is in the Chamber, I might say something particularly about him. The member for Lingiari has a very deep knowledge and personal experience of Indigenous matters, right from the days when he sat at the feet of Nugget Coombs and assisted him. I learnt a great deal about a very interesting period in our history from talking to the member for Lingiari. More of us should spend time listening to his experience in these matters. I certainly benefited from his experience. Mr Snowdon interjecting— Mr LEESER 109556 I'm sure I've ruined his preselection chances there! While acknowledging we all came from very different perspectives at all times, this committee sought to focus on what we agreed on, not what we disagreed on. On behalf of the committee I want to acknowledge and thank everyone who's worked with us, including those who made submissions and gave evidence. In particular, I'd like to thank the committee secretariat for their work on the report. I also want to acknowledge Kevin Keeffe, from Senator Dodson's office, who played a terrific role in assisting Senator Dodson and members of the committee with the report, and Philippa Englund from my office. It's appropriate for me to acknowledge that Pip has been with me almost since I became a parliamentarian, and personal circumstances with her husband's work have now taken her interstate. She recently left my office, and that's left a big hole in my own office at the moment. We're missing her. The work that she did on this report was very useful. I'm grateful for the indulgence of the Federation Chamber to continue my remarks and I commend the report to the House. 17:45 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari Firstly, I acknowledge the Ngunawal and Ngambri people, on whose lands we're meeting today. I say to the member for Berowra: you've been very generous in your remarks, but I might just make the observation that there was a generosity of spirit involved in working on this committee. This meant us parking our ideologies at the door and trying to come to an agreement, and perhaps even compromise on some of the issues raised. I want to thank you for your leadership, in partnership with Senator Dodson. Pat's a senior man in every sense, but I think you were able to work with him in a very constructive way to bring us to a point where we've got a report that I think the parliament can be proud of. It won't be agreed, as we know, as not everyone external to the parliament will agree with the recommendations. But I think no-one can devalue the intent and commitment of the committee members to try to get to a point where we could recommend to the parliament in a bipartisan way the acknowledgment for a voice and a process for getting it established. I want to thank you for that most particularly—so thank you. In his contribution, the member for Berowra canvassed in many ways the depth of the report. But I do want to go to the foreword of the report, which is co-signed by the member for Berowra and Senator Dodson. At the beginning of the report they say: Beyond the poetry of the Statement from the Heart is the prose of political reality—the need to ensure that our recommendations provide for a form of constitutional recognition that is legitimate and acceptable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as well as our parliamentary colleagues across the spectrum, and ultimately to the Australian people. And there is the challenge. There has been some criticism of those of us on the committee for not adopting a view that we should immediately go to a referendum and not go through a process of co-design prior to the referendum process. Clearly, in the context of this parliament, that would not succeed. Whilst it's clear that we on the Labor side of the parliament have committed ourselves to a referendum in the next term of government, if we're successful at the forthcoming election, that is not the case with the government. And for a referendum to be successful, it is important that we do whatever we possibly can to inveigle the current government, and potentially the future opposition, to support a proposition that can be successful at a referendum. That's the challenge that we have. It's absolutely legitimate for people to have the view, as has been expressed, that the priority ought to be given to a referendum first, prior to the question of the voice itself being properly settled. That's a valid position, but it's not one that we've proposed in these recommendations. It's not one that I think would be successful. Nevertheless, there is an absolute necessity for us to see the reality of the voice come to fruition. For too long now, since the demise of ATSIC—bearing in mind the work that the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples has undertaken, but putting that aside—there has not been any real representative voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across this country. One of the things that is very clear, and something that we in Labor are committed to, is that we need to go back to the regions across this great continent of ours and talk to people in their communities and in the regions about how they perceive the voice developing and what the question for constitutional reform should look like. The member for Berowra commented that there were 18 different proposals for the question about reforming the Constitution. Indeed, my good friend Senator Dodson and I posited one. We suggested—we did talk to a few people about this!—that a simple process for the referendum would be to say that this is what we want: 1 There shall be a First Nations Voice to Parliament; 2 The Voice shall not be a third chamber of the Parliament; 3 The Voice shall be advisory only and its advice will not be justiciable; and 4 Its powers and functions shall be determined by the Parliament of Australia. That encapsulates quite neatly the aspiration from the people who were behind that great, coherent process around the Statement from the Heart. I believe that it is that sort of approach that will get recognition at some point. But in the meantime there is a lot of work to be done. We need, as a parliament, to go back to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia to ultimately get what this co-design process will look like. I accept most profoundly the words of the member for Berowra when he commented on what this co-design process should be, but it's very important that we understand that handing down the tablets from on high to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across this country does not work. It has never worked and it will not work. We have to go back to the people and talk to them in their communities and allow them the courtesy of being able to make a contribution to this process in a way that they think is appropriate. If we do that, I am very confident that we can get a consensus around what the design of a voice should be and that we can settle on a question to be put to the Australian people. That is our quest. The member for Berowra referred to previous approaches to constitutional change. I am disappointed that the other approaches—that the expert panel, for example, proposed—were not picked up by the Statement from the Heart. But, nevertheless, we are now on a road that I think is going to take us to a point where we will get a successful referendum, provided that we're prepared to work cooperatively together. When I talk about cooperation, I don't mean just working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and giving them the lead; we need to understand and comprehend that, if this is ever to be successful, then we have to get our friends across the chamber to come with us. I'm sure if they see the strength of support that there is within the general community for the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution and for a voice to be described, they will see the inevitability of a successful referendum and come on board. That is not to say there won't be critics, but it is important to us that we do the right thing by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, at last, and give them the voice they properly deserve in our Constitution. A series of recommendations have been made, and they speak for themselves, but one of them that I think is not really properly appreciated is recommendation 4: The Committee also recommends that the Australian Government consider the establishment, in Canberra, of a National Resting Place, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander remains which could be a place of commemoration, healing and reflection. The issue of truth-telling is really very important to this nation. An ossuary or a keeping place here in Canberra would, I think, be a vital part in telling the story. We need to hope that communities around this country will see the challenge of accepting and understanding their past, our past and our collective responsibility to address the past, not in any sense of guilt but understanding the reality of what happened. If we do that, I am absolutely confident that the Australian community will support us in our endeavours to ensure that the voice is constructed in an appropriate way and that we get constitutional recognition through a successful referendum process. I thank the secretariat for their work on the committee. Most particularly I thank the committee members. I mentioned the co-chairs earlier, but I do want to pay particular tribute to the member for Barton and Senator McCarthy, who came along this road and provided great insight, intellectual capacity and cultural experience and knowledge and background, which helped us in our deliberations in a very important way. Thank you. 17:55 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I join with my colleagues in welcoming the tabling into parliament of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. This committee has spent many months travelling across this vast continent and heard and spoke with many organisations. It has engaged with a remarkably diverse group of people that are intensely interested in its important inquiry, which is of national significance. They're also interested in the recommendations of this final report that has now been tabled. I want to note where this committee travelled to: Kununurra; Halls Creek; Fitzroy Crossing; Broome; here in Canberra, of course; Dubbo; Sydney; Adelaide; Perth. The committee attended a meeting of the four Northern Territory land councils at Barunga. There were hearings in Wodonga, Shepparton, Melbourne, Thursday Island, Townsville, Palm Island, Brisbane, Redfern and Albury. This is a remarkable amount of travel for a committee to do, and I want to commend those members of the committee that did apply their dedication to this great work and took time away from their families and all their other work. I think this report will one day be reflected on as a report of historical significance to this parliament, and those committee members who were active participants in it can be rightly very happy with their work. The co-chair of this committee, the member for Berowra, Julian Leeser, was elected to the parliament on the same day as me. We share a deep respect for the Constitution of this country. I know that he applied himself entirely to the work of being co-chair of the joint select committee and the extraordinary responsibility of the inquiry the committee undertook into the recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Constitution. In the course of this work there's been a new addition to his family, James. It's a great burden to be away from a newborn, but also a great burden on your partner, and I'd like to pay tribute to Mrs Leeser. I want to acknowledge her part in this, as well as the contribution of the member for Berowra. He had the great honour of being co-chair alongside Senator Patrick Dodson, Senator for Western Australia and the father of reconciliation in this country. Improving the lives and futures of Indigenous Australians, ensuring their equality and delivering this nation's reconciliation with its past is Patrick Dodson's idea. He lives for his people. If I ruled the world and could have all my wishes granted, Pat Dodson would be Australia's first Australian head of state. But in the meantime all I can do is to thank him for his commitment to his work as co-chair of this committee and for his commitment to this inquiry. I also want to recognise the contributions of the member for Barton, Linda Burney; Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, Senator for the NT; and the member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, who spoke earlier on this report. All have been active participants and dedicated to ensuring that the Indigenous peoples of this nation are recognised in the Constitution, but they also work on many more issues of great concern for Indigenous peoples. Alongside Senator Dodson they have fought for many years for equality and fairness for Indigenous Australia. As a member of Labor's First Nations caucus committee, I had the extraordinary opportunity to attend one of the meetings of this inquiry. I attended the meeting at Barunga, where the committee met with the four Northern Territory land councils—the Anindilyakwa Land Council, the Central Land Council, the Northern Land Council and the Tiwi Land Council. Sometimes in your life you find yourself in a place you never knew existed or never really imagined. I was aware of the Barunga Statement, delivered 30 years ago, but had not really turned my mind to where that was on this earth—the place where it was delivered to PM Bob Hawke by Indigenous leaders. To go there and be at that meeting place and witness the land councils meeting with this parliamentary committee was extraordinary and unforgettable. This meeting was held under a large canopy in Barunga just prior to the start of the annual Barunga Festival. Since being elected just over a couple of years ago I've seen some committee hearings, but nothing like this. It's hot in Barunga. It's an hour's drive from Katherine. Mr Snowdon interjecting— Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 I reckon it's hot, Warren! It's in the middle of the country. The setting was a million miles away from the hearings we held here and in cities around the country, but it was much more than the setting that was very different. Together with my friend and colleague here today, the member for Newcastle, Sharon Claydon, we sat under a tent and watched and listened to the hearing for some hours. For those who don't know, Sharon Claydon was an anthropologist before she became a parliamentarian. She's skilled in the observation of people and their behaviours and she has been an important participant in the whole parliamentary committee system since being elected in 2013. As we watched, Sharon asked me quietly, 'Where have you ever seen so many people so deeply engaged in such a lengthy and detailed discussion about the Constitution?' It was quite an observation. I was a student of constitutional law, I've been a lawyer, I worked at a university for 10 years and I've been a parliamentarian for two years, and never in that time have I seen such an engaging discussion about the Constitution of this country—not in a lecture theatre, not in my community and not in this parliament. I saw such a wonder and it was in that tiny little remote town in the Northern Territory known as Barunga. More than a hundred Indigenous Australians, organised in their land councils and groupings, sat, listened and caucused on how they'd speak to the committee. They talked about the points that needed to be made and what had been said and what had not been said. There was good humour, there was harsh reality and there was thoughtful consideration of recognising Indigenous Australians in the Constitution by those themselves seeking to be recognised and included 117 years after they were excluded. The people participating in this meeting in Barunga have some very significant issues to deal with. Extraordinary inequality exists between that community and urban areas around the country, as it is for all remote communities around this country. But you can fight battles on more than one front, and the people at Barunga who participated in the inquiry on that day know that. They live the inequality that we here cannot imagine and they argue for a better Constitution and a better country. We need to listen; we must listen. We must listen to what they said 30 years ago in the Barunga Statement and, more recently, the Uluru Statement from the Heart. As the member for Lingiari said, it has to stop where we deliver things from on high and expect it to magically happen. We have to listen to the people who these things affect. The three days I spent in Katherine and Barunga earlier this year were remarkable and unforgettable. I learnt from my new friends, the Indigenous members of the Labor caucus, Pat, Linda and Malarndirri, and the wonderful representatives of the NT, Warren Snowden and the member for Solomon, Luke Gosling, and others who were with us—the member for Newcastle and the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, who, 30 years after the Barunga Statement was delivered, committed Labor to recognising Indigenous Australia and ensuring that Australians everywhere opened their hearts to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Barunga Statement, from 30 years ago, called for Aboriginal self-management, land rights, respect for Aboriginal identity, the end to discrimination and the granting of full civil, economic, social and cultural rights. The statement hangs on the walls of this parliament for all to read. It sits opposite the suffragette tapestry of a young Australia urging an old Britain to permit women to vote. The requests of the Barunga Statement have not been met. Now we have the Uluru Statement. Part of that statement, as delivered by the Indigenous peoples, says: We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country. It is an aspirational statement, as the report observed, but it is an aspiration that we must grab hold of and make sure we meet. The final report of the select committee has been delivered. As the report states, the key point of this report is that the voice should become a reality and be co-designed with government by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples right across the nation. I support this recommendation. I support the report. I know that not everyone will support it and that not all parts of it will be supported, but it is an excellent starting point for this country to move forward. Labor will be guided by the recommendations of the report. We hope that members of the government all take it on board—that they read it, listen to it and listen to people in their community, and that they go further afield to all of the places that the committee saw fit to visit. More of us could do more to reach out to Indigenous communities that we don't normally have interaction with, so that we might ensure that they are more well represented in this parliament, whether it's as representatives or, as we're meant to represent people, by us talking to them, listening to them and bringing their representations to the parliament. Most importantly, we must recognise what the voice is and what has been asked of us. We need to act in the best interests of the nation and our Indigenous sisters and brothers. It's time that we met the requests of the Barunga Statement and the Uluru Statement from the Heart and committed to a voice for Indigenous peoples in this nation. 18:05 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert Along with my colleagues, I welcome the report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 2018. I am very proud to rise to speak to the report and, in doing so, I believe it is only fair that I acknowledge the Bwgcolman people of Palm Island, the Wulgurukaba and the Bindal people in my electorate of Herbert. It has been more than a quarter of a century since the High Court's Mabo decision first acknowledged that terra nullius was a myth and, in fact, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are and always have been the traditional owners of this great land we call Australia. During that time, a whole generation of younger Australians have grown up with a sense that the Constitution, written in the days of White Australia, needed to be changed to reflect the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this country, yet little progress has been made because of deep disagreements over what form recognition should take. As a nation, we asked our First Nations people: what does recognition mean to you? They delivered, in most recent times, the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which was promptly rejected out of hand by this government. So Labor did what Labor does best: we fought for those people who have been ignored and left behind, our First Nations people. This commitment was pushed by Labor and, as a result of the report that I am speaking on here today, has been led by Labor. This report addresses some of the most important challenges for us as a nation—that is, acknowledging and including our First Nations people, recognising our First Nations people, and truth-telling about our history. Most importantly, it addresses how we as a nation can move forward together as a united and fair nation. I want to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the members of the committee; in particular, Senator Patrick Dodson, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, the Hon. Linda Burney and the Hon. Warren Snowden. I also pay tribute to the committee's co-chair, the member for Berowra, Julian Leeser. This committee has had the enormous responsibility of travelling across Australia and listening to the stories of First Nations people. The committee has heard their stories, some of which were incredibly difficult for people in those communities to tell, especially the people who felt forgotten and ignored. The committee has arrived at some shared understanding on a way forward for the parliament to consider. The committee was established in March and presented its interim report in July. It held 27 hearings in communities around Australia. In June and July the committee held hearings in Kununurra, Falls Creek, Fitzroy Crossing, Broome, Canberra, Dubbo, Sydney, Adelaide and Perth. The committee also attended a meeting of the four Northern Territory land councils in Barunga. Barunga commemorated the 30th anniversary of the promise of a treaty that was made by Prime Minister Hawke. In September and October the committee conducted additional public hearings in Canberra, Wodonga, Shepparton, Melbourne, Thursday Island, Townsville, Palm Island, Brisbane and Redfern. I attended the hearings in Townsville and on Palm Island. The stories and experiences that were shared by people in my communities were incredibly moving. I refer to Lynore Geia, an academic with a PhD, who was born on Palm Island. Her story is one of incredible resilience: a young woman born, raised and educated on Palm who now has a PhD in the field of health from James Cook University. But what was really sad was listening to her talk about how, even as an academic with a PhD, at times she did not feel that she was equal to her peers. One of the elders, whose mother grew up in the dormitories on Palm Island, said that recognition would take time. She wondered if this nation was even ready for such a huge reform. She talked about the need for truth-telling. She asked how we can reform if we don't know the truth of what actually happened. Those people who lived on Palm Island at that time—in excess of 47 language groups—lived by the bell; they had no choice. A bell rang, and you got up. A bell rang, and you did your jobs. A bell rang, and you went to bed. Those people had no say in how they lived. Their children were separated from their parents. Their parents were sent to the mainland to work in domestic roles when they were as young as 17 or 18. Those people on Palm, particularly the elders, listened and gave evidence in the committee hearing with some trepidation and some real concern for what it would mean for them. They could not go through a 1967 referendum again, as Townsville was one of the two places in the country that voted no. The concerns for them were very real, and they want time for the yarning to happen; they want time for people to hear their story. On top of the hearings, the committee also received nearly 500 submissions and 47 supplementary submissions. This is a huge workload, and I want to genuinely acknowledge all of the senators and members and the secretary involved in this committee. As my colleagues have said before me—but is worth noting again—although differences exist between the parties on these nationally significant issues, we do appreciate the efforts of the committee members to find common ground and to enable the parliament to go forward. In the interim report, the committee considered in detail the proposal coming from the Statement of the Heart for a voice to parliament. Since July, the committee continued to seek the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and others about how best to achieve constitutional recognition. In this final report, the committee endorses the proposal for a voice. The committee recommends a process of co-design between government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to work through the details of the voice during the term of the 46th Parliament. The committee also recommends that the legal form and role of the voice should be determined following the process of co-design. These recommendations are significant steps for the parliament to discuss and consider in the hope of moving us towards a cross-party and agreed approach to constitutional recognition. The committee also makes important recommendations in relation to truth-telling about Australian history. Seeking a fuller understanding of Australia's history will lead to a more reconciled nation. As one important example, the committee recommends the establishment of a national resting place in Canberra for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander unknown remains that cannot be returned to country. It will be a place for commemoration, healing and reflection. Labor will be guided by the committee's report on this issue. As a party, we remain committed to using this report as one step towards the future of a reconciled Australia—an Australia that recognises First Nation people in our Constitution, values the history of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to a modern Australia and entrenches recognition in our nation's birth certificate: our Constitution. Labor remains committed to all elements arising from the Statement from the Heart and we will continue to work with First Nations people for a voice to parliament, constitutional entrenchment of the voice and a truth-telling and agreement-making process. These are high-order issues for Labor, and quite rightly so. There has been some quite intense discussion on what should come first: a referendum, legislation or co-design. In some ways, this is a matter of political judgement, working through all of the legal consequences that words bring to constitutional consideration to achieve a successful outcome for First Nations people and the broader Australian community. A matter not covered in this report is the issue of a republic. Labor is also keen to hold a conversation—an important conversation—with the Australian people on the issue of a republic. The republic will be an important conversation, but we have committed to constitutional change relating to acknowledging our First Nations voice as our first priority and our very clear focus. Labor has led the way on this important issue of reconciliation. There is a general desire to get on with it, to get things done quickly but thoroughly, and to push for an early referendum. All of this will take political courage—political courage for the government of the day in passing the law, making it possible for any constitutional change to occur. Then it will take political courage for the opposition of the day and those on the cross benches to support the question and the process of the referendum. Finally, it will take courage amongst the Australian people—courage to decide the future that we want to see for our great nation, courage to say yes to recognition and reconciliation and the courage of the majority of the voters nationally and the majority of the states to vote in favour of the questions that have been put to the nation. I now ask all senators and members to respectfully read the report. Read the stories of those in our nation who have felt forgotten. Then we must ask ourselves the question: what sort of Australia do we want to be? Do we want to be a nation that excludes minority communities, or do we want to be a nation and a parliament that represents all Australians? The debate must be respectful in this place if we are to be true leaders. It's time for senators and members to honour our First Nations people in our Constitution so that it might be a constitution for every Australian living on this land. 18:15 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle It's a terrific privilege to be able to stand in the Chamber to speak on this final report from the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. I should, at the outset, repeat my acknowledgement of the Ngunawal and Nambri peoples, on whose traditional country we gather, and also recognise, from my own home town of Newcastle, the Awabakal and Worimi peoples. I will seek to draw on their millennia of wisdom as we in this parliament try to come to grips with a 200-plus year colonial history and how we might best shape a pathway for the nation to land in a place where constitutional recognition becomes a lived reality. I would like to thank at the outset all of the participating members of this committee. I know that it was an enormous task, but I must say we probably had the brightest and most committed minds in this parliament put their hands up to undertake this enormous task. I note the model of having co-chairs for this committee rather than the traditional approach of the chair being a government member and the opposition getting the deputy chair position. I pay tribute to those who were able to seek agreement on having co-chairs in this instance. Senator Patrick Dodson, from the opposition, and Mr Julian Leeser, a government member in the House of Representatives, together formed a genuine partnership. Indeed, in many ways, this is a model for what is going to be required for the nation to be able to implement the recommendations of this report. I would also like to acknowledge the Labor members, the member for Barton, who participated here, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, and the member for Lingiari, who spoke earlier. The crossbench were represented by the member for Indi, who is here in the Chamber as well. There was also Greens senator Rachel Siewert, as well as Senator Amanda Stoker and Senator Jonathon Duniam, and, on the House of Representatives side, Dr John McVeigh and Sussan Ley, who was there for a period of time, and Mr Llew O'Brien. It was an enormous task. There was a lot of travelling across Australia in order to be able to achieve their goals. As the member for Brand said earlier, she and I were incredibly privileged to be at the Barunga Festival at the time the joint committee was hosting its meeting with the four land councils just prior to the Barunga Festival. It was enormously insightful for all of us who were able to be there on that occasion. These are all men and women who have spent literally decades of their lives thinking about the issue of contested histories in Australia and about how you might remedy some of the injustices that have occurred, and participating in very deep and thoughtful discussions on constitutional matters in this community. It really should come as no surprise that First Nations people might lead us in these sorts of discussions, because it is such a part of their lived reality having to deal with these discrepancies in the Constitution. They feel the very real impacts of the inadequacies of the Constitution as it is currently drafted, probably more deeply than most. So it is no surprise that the meeting with the land councils prior to the Barunga Festival would be so illuminating. People brought great knowledge, humour, love and good faith and intentions to those discussions. I really pay tribute to all of the senior men and women there who really opened up, yet again, their hearts and minds to try and make the rest of us understand what the very real implications of these matters were for everyday life for First Nations peoples. What has really hit home for me in reading this report and reflecting on just one of those meetings that I attended, there at Barunga, is how critical the way this parliament now responds is. At Barunga, people were reminded that 30 years ago they were promised a treaty. We failed. We totally failed as a nation to live up to that ask and that expectation. I possibly won't be here in 30 years, but I don't want the next member for Newcastle, or anyone else in the next generation, standing in this parliament still calling for a remedy for the injustices that took place in this nation and saying that we have never actually faced the issues squarely enough to find real, lasting solutions. I think that this report really does open up a pathway. It is critical. You can be assured that every First Nations man, woman and kid is going to be looking to this parliament now and looking at us very closely as to how we conduct ourselves and what course of action we take. I have to say that, for many people, it will be a case of actions speaking louder than words. They have heard it all before, in some cases. This report puts the voice firmly back on the national agenda. That is a good thing because—even though the voice, as recommended by the Uluru statement, might have taken many of us by surprise, in terms of the ask of the nation—that is what very, very close and detailed consultations amongst First Nations people came up with. This was the priority—having a voice. There are certainly still some live issues about how we enable all of those regional and local voices to be part of the process of establishing a national voice. I think that will be really critical, but this does provide some important first stepping stones in that process. Make no mistake: Labor remains utterly committed to all elements arising from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and we will continue to work with First Nations peoples for a voice in parliament, for a constitutional entrenchment of that voice, which is critical, and for a truth-telling and agreement-making process. These are high-order issues and high priorities for Labor. The significance of truth-telling and agreement-making should be no surprise to anyone in this parliament. It is a vital part of the reconciliation process, where we as a nation confront or, as I said, face squarely the fact that there are contested histories about our nation. We need to understand that history of injustice as experienced by First Nations. That has to be acknowledged. That has to be an important part of that process, and that's why the truth-telling is critical. I hope that everyone in this place takes very, very seriously the obligation that is now before us to act—to have a very meaningful, purposeful and thoughtful response to this report. I am pleased that, notwithstanding some differences in this Chamber, the voice is firmly back on the agenda. The co-designing with First Nations people at a local, regional and national level is critical to getting this right. 18:25 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman I rise to speak to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, a committee co-chaired by the member for Berowra, Mr Julian Leeser, and my esteemed colleague Senator Dodson. In May 2017, 250 First Nations leaders met at Uluru and called for a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament. After more than a decade of debate about what form constitutional recognition should take, representatives of First Nations people described what it looked like to them. They told Australia that, while the 1967 referendum meant they were counted, the next referendum should ensure they are heard. The Statement from the Heart is one of the most significant documents produced in the history of reconciliation, and from day one Labor has been determined to accord the statement proper respect through consideration. This was endorsed on Friday by the report being tabled. Labor will be guided by the committee's report, and I, as a white woman standing on land that always was and always will be Aboriginal land, will be guided by my First Nations colleagues on this immense undertaking. I have no doubt that, if anyone can take on this journey for constitutional recognition, it's Senators Dodson and McCarthy along with the member for Barton, Linda Burney. I will also be listening to the views of the First Nations community in my electorate. The Aboriginal community has always been at the heart of the identity of Batman—soon to be Cooper. It's the home of the Aborigines Advancement League, the mighty All Stars football team and Aboriginal voice radio 3KND Kool n Deadly, to name just a few. We recently celebrated the AEC's decision to change the electorate name from Batman to Cooper. For me, it was my happiest moment since becoming an MP. William Cooper was an Indigenous leader who spent his life working to advance the rights of First Nations people. The campaign for change was led by the Wurundjeri and Yorta Yorta elders and communities. The AEC's decision acknowledges the intergenerational suffering of First Nations peoples caused by colonisation. It is a mark of truth-telling, respect and recognition and of a nation maturing. This change was achieved by them, and the honour belongs to them. The same will be true when we achieve constitutional recognition. Labor remain committed to all elements arising from the statement. A Shorten Labor government will establish a voice for First Nations people and seek the support of the Australian people for that voice to be enshrined in the Constitution. We support the voice. We support enshrining it in the Constitution, and it is our first priority for constitutional change. A voice would not be a third chamber of parliament; it would be a mechanism for First Nations people to have a greater say in policy issues that impact their lives. We have nothing to lose and much to gain from working with First Nations people to address the many complex issues that colonisation has thrust upon them. Labor have made it clear that we will work with the government but we will not wait for them. If bipartisanship cannot be reached, we will look to legislate a new body as a first step on the pathway to enshrining it in the Constitution. We will move quickly, following the election, to agree on a process with First Nations people, including a clear pathway to a referendum. We will also work with them in establishing a makarrata commission for agreement-making and truth-telling. This will be a genuine process of government and First Nations working together to achieve meaningful change. I want to finish by echoing the words of my esteemed colleague Senator Pat Dodson: It will take the government of the day passing a law to make possible any constitutional change. Then it will take the opposition of the day and the parties of the crossbenches to support the question and the process for any referendum. Then it will take a majority of the voters nationally and in the majority of the states in favour of the question that has to be put to the nation. This is where we, as politicians and our parties, come in— In the interests of the parliament as a whole, I respectfully ask: once you've had the opportunity to examine our committee's report, do you and your party want to support a referendum to ensure a voice to the parliament for our First Nations peoples? If you do, as Senator Pat Dodson said, then let's work together. But let's be clear: we in Labor can't wait for you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 100 GRIEVANCE DEBATE National Disability Insurance Scheme 100 18:30 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell The most vulnerable in our community have been let down by this government. People and families in crisis have been let down by this government. People living with disability and older people waiting for the age pension, struggling to get by, have been let down by this government. When Labor launched the NDIS in 2013, it was to transform the lives of Australians under 65 living with a permanent and significant disability, providing the reasonable and necessary supports for them to live an ordinary life. The NDIS rollout on the Central Coast began in July 2016. While the experience has been positive for some, for many the NDIS isn't working. I have raised some of the problems my constituents have experienced on a number of occasions. Let me also share you with you Sophie's story. Sophie is 15 years old. She has a rare condition and can't walk or stand independently. Before she became an NDIS participant, Sophie had a standing frame provided by the New South Wales Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care which she used to support herself in a standing position, to retain some muscle movement and bone density. This is also important for posture and relieves the pressure from sitting in the wheelchair for prolonged periods of time. When Sophie transitioned to the NDIS in 2016, she was told to give the equipment back to ADHC because the NDIS would provide her with a new frame. Sophie's mum, Belinda, contacted me last week because she still does not have a new standing frame. Sophie has been confined to a wheelchair exclusively for more than two years because of the administrative issues in the National Disability Insurance Agency. Sophie's first plan included approval for a new standing frame but, by the time the agency processed her reports, nearly 12 months had passed and the quotes were no longer valid. Her second plan again included the frame, and this time the agency finally approved the OT report and quote, and an order was placed in December last year. By the time the equipment arrived, nearly six months later, Belinda was told it was no longer appropriate for Sophie, who had grown, and it's now much harder for her parents to lift her. Belinda was told a larger, sit-to-stand frame was a better option, which Sophie could continue to use as an adult. A request was lodged with the agency for approval of the new frame. The other frame was never picked up. Instead, it was retained by EnableNSW, the equipment supplier, for their equipment pool, to be provided to another NDIS participant who needed it. Of course, Belinda did not make this decision herself. She was following advice from the agency and the equipment supplier—a mother trying to do what's best for her daughter. But the agency have now refused to approve the new frame, because they say it would be duplication. Duplication? How can providing nothing be considered duplication? Sophie is worse off because of her transition to the NDIS. She had to give essential equipment back because the New South Wales government refuses to be a provider of disability services. She has been unable to have the equipment replaced because of bureaucracy and delays in the agency. This is not good enough. I call on the minister to intervene. Sophie deserves better. It is apparent that a major cause of problems with the rollout of the NDIS is an arbitrary staff cap at the NDIA. The cap is a relic of this government's cruel 2014 budget. The staff cap creates a false economy, forcing the NDIA to rely on outsourcing and contractors, which is often more expensive. In recent times, the NDIA has committed over $145 million for contract and temporary staff; outsourced call centre functions to the multinational Serco—the equivalent of up to 380 full-time jobs, at a cost of $63 million over two years—and spent over $61 million on consultants in 2016-17 and 2017-18 alone. At the same time, the scheme's rollout is currently behind schedule—the equivalent of over 46,000 people missing out on the NDIS. People with disability have also faced massive plan review backlogs and have missed out on the essential supports they need. People with disability, their families and advocates have long been raising concerns about the staff cap, including delays and poor quality planning. The cap makes it harder to develop a first-class workforce with the skills in delivering disability support that will be needed into the future. NDIA staff work hard, and this arbitrary cap is just putting more unnecessary pressure on a stretched service. Last year the Productivity Commission recommended the staff cap be scrapped, but the government has still not acted on this recommendation. People with disability need to be at the heart of everything the NDIS does. It exists to provide essential services. A Labor government would remove the Liberals' arbitrary NDIS staff cap, freeing the agency to make the best long-term decisions about how to deliver quality services to Australians living with a disability. Another area where my constituents have been experiencing problems this year is in accessing the age pension. Older Australians in my community are experiencing significant delays in accessing the age pension. The government has previously admitted to a delay of 49 days—seven weeks!—but some in my community have been waiting for much, much longer. Chris in my electorate applied for the age pension in December last year, and when he contacted my office in June this year it still hadn't been processed. The issue, he was told, was that he had not provided details of his wife's business, yet he had sent the paperwork off multiple times. Fortunately, my office was able to help and the claim was processed, but Chris said that, if it weren't for growing his own vegetables, he had no idea how he would have survived. Denise and Steven applied for their age pensions in early November last year, and I was appalled that their claims weren't approved until May this year. The problem then was that, after seven months, when they were finally approved, an extremely large amount of back pay had accrued and Steven was told that it was too large for the system to process. So they still weren't being paid at all, and the amount that was owed was increasing. They were finally paid in July, around nine months after they had first applied. This is appalling. Centrelink is underresourced and the staff are stretched, yet this government continues to cut jobs from Centrelink. Another 1,280 jobs have been cut from Centrelink this year, disregarding the many, many Australians waiting for youth allowance, carers' payments and the age pension. Like the problems with the NDIS, many of Centrelink's problems stem from staffing and the government's refusal to employ enough properly trained permanent staff to deliver services, rather than relying on contract labour. This makes it so much harder for vulnerable Australians to get help. Centrelink needs permanent full-time staff who are supported, familiar with and trained to manage complex issues facing income support recipients. Labor has committed to investing $196 million in 1,200 new permanent and full-time Department of Human Services staff around the country, improving waiting times, clearing the backlog and providing the essential services that everyday Australians rely on. Whether it's older Australians like Denise and Steven waiting for an age pension, or a young person like Sophie who, with her mum, is struggling with the NDIS and the New South Wales government's retreat from disability services with the rollout of the NDIS, the new jobs that Labor would provide would improve service delivery. They would also boost local economies in regional communities like mine. Most importantly, they will help vulnerable people to get the support they need when they need it. I'll conclude by turning to carers, and this is something that is very close to my heart. My mum was a carer for my late father for more than five years. Last week my mum attended the YODSS group, which is the Younger Onset Dementia Social Support Club. It meets at Yakkalla Cottage in Bateau Bay in my electorate. Sadly, many people from that group have passed away this year. But one of the most important things that any government can do is to help people who are caring for other people. In this particular group of people living with younger onset dementia and those people who care for them, there are many people who have had difficulty accessing carer payments or carer allowance. There are also people who are struggling because of the lack of respite, particularly coming into this period now, over Christmas and the New Year, when many of these services shut down or wind back. It often leaves families in crisis, really struggling to be able to access the support they need. So I call on this government and I call on the minister to act. Too many families and too many people in crisis will be struggling this Christmas because of this government's cruel cuts. They really need to stop the hollow rhetoric and spruiking about essential services and genuinely do something to help people and families in crisis to deal with these problems, particularly during the period over Christmas and New Year—but also into the New Year and always. That's what any government should and must do: look after the most vulnerable in our community. Taxation 102 18:40 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney Today I rise to speak about a matter which is of great concern to residents in my electorate, as it is across Australia. Labor's proposed retiree tax will hurt retirees and low-income earners by abolishing tax refunds for share dividends. The policy imposes a $45 billion tax on 900,000 Australians, 200,000 self-managed super funds and 2,000 super funds. Many of those affected live in my electorate. In fact, around 10½ thousand residents in North Sydney stand to lose under Labor's proposal. My electorate ranks sixth in Australia for the number of people who would feel the impact of Labor's policy if ever they got elected to government. Retirees from all walks of life have reached out to me, concerned about the devastating impact of this proposal on their own personal circumstances. These are people who, just as they have helped build our prosperous nation through their own hard work, have sought to ensure they have a reasonable income in their later years. In doing so, many have reduced the burden on our pension system. Yet Labor wants to penalise their efforts. The policy goes to the core of why the Labor Party cannot be trusted to manage the nation's economy. I have been inundated with calls, letters, emails, responses to surveys and other forms of communication from local residents concerned about Labor's plan. Many of these people are not what the Labor Party would consider to be wealthy. A taxable income below $37,000 a year is not wealthy. Yet the overwhelming majority of those impacted by Labor's plan receive taxable incomes of less than $37,000 a year. How can that possibly be fair or equitable? What we see at the core of Labor's proposal is a blatant cash grab, using our retirees to fund Labor's election policies rather than taking the hard and responsible decisions to manage federal government spending properly. My grievance with Labor's retiree tax is threefold. Firstly, it is flawed in principle. Australia's tax system is predicated on avoiding double taxation. In fact, we have double taxation agreements and treaties signed with over 40 countries to avoid this problem for those overseas. These agreements are designed to eliminate the occurrence of double taxation, where money that has already incurred tax is not taxed again. This principle is the reason that franking credits exist. They allow investors to pay tax only on the difference between the company tax rate of the day and a person's marginal income tax rate. Without such a mechanism, not only would double taxation occur, but it would also erode the investment case for many hardworking Australians, who will pay more in tax. For those on low incomes or a pension, this franked component of the dividend is repaid to the investor in the form of a tax credit. Having read many of the submissions received by this House of Representatives Economics Committee and correspondence from my own constituents in North Sydney, I know this is a vital source of income for so many Australians. Rather than encouraging more Australians to invest and get ahead, this policy seeks to take away from those who have tried to do the right thing. The second issue with this policy that I want to raise today is that it is fundamentally retrospective. If Labor were serious about reforming our retirement system, they would have come to the table with a comprehensive policy. Instead, they have taken the easy route and seek to play the politics of envy. For decades retirees have saved and invested their hard-earned money on the basis that they would receive franking credits. Labor's policy is to change the goalposts mid-game. This is not only unfair to those who have done the right thing; it also impacts on investment confidence. Who is to say what the next tax grab might be when debt and deficits inevitably start to climb under a Labor government? Ironically, it will discourage investment in Australian companies in favour of overseas companies, hurting our own economy. It would also put more pressure on our age pension. We have a growing ageing population and, without a strong superannuation system that encourages investment, the pension scheme will become more and more costly and less sustainable. This is a reckless and poorly thought out policy that really says a lot about how a future Labor government would run this nation's economy if they were elected. It's not just me or those in the Liberal Party saying these things. For example, Ian Henschke, from National Seniors Australia, said: National Seniors is concerned about the large number of its members and non-members who could be affected by the policy. …   …   … So, we will end up with a two-class system of retirees: one group protected; the other not. Professor Ralston from the Alliance for a Fairer Retirement System said that, under the proposed policy, a couple retiring on the full age pension with $300,000 of savings invested in Australian shares will be better off than a self-funded retiree couple with a million dollars invested in Australian shares. Geoff Wilson of Wilson Asset Management, a very considered critic of Labor's policy, said: Labor has pushed this ill-conceived policy by claiming it would only hurt the rich and deliver significant savings for the government ... Far from being 'rich', 69 per cent who completed our poll earn $90,000 or less a year and 53 per cent would be forced to reduce their family's living standard and quality of life in order to accommodate the loss of income. Associate Professor Geoff Warren of the Australian National University said that ANU research estimates Labor's retiree tax could result in Australians' superannuation balances being up to nine per cent lower at the point of retirement. A Citi report of 12 September 2018 said that Labor's retiree tax would hurt high 'dividend-paying stocks including the banks, miners and Telstra'. It 'would impact domestic shareholders with low tax rates'—most significantly self-managed super funds. Self-managed super funds make up the third and final grievance of residents in North Sydney who have contacted me about this proposal. The super funds most severely impacted by this policy are not the big industry funds supported by Labor's mates in the union movement; it is the self-managed super funds—mum-and-dad investors who are working hard to provide for themselves and their families. Big industry funds can pool together the contributions of members who do receive dividend imputations and those who don't, reducing the impact on members in these funds. This overwhelmingly benefits the big end of town and will cause many self-funded retirees to struggle in what will become an increasingly unattractive investment market if this policy were ever put into effect. This means the cumulative impact on these fund will be minor for union funds when compared to those who rely on franking credits as part of their overall investment portfolio. We all acknowledge that we need to do more as a country to ease the pressure on the age pension. In Paul Keating's day, it was all about empowering individuals to save for their own retirement. Now the approach under Labor and under the current Leader of the Opposition is to empower unions by pitching middle Australians against the biggest funds in the nation. The Liberal government is committed to stopping Labor's retiree tax and will continue to create the jobs growth and investment environment Australia needs for the future. Like all Australians, the people of North Sydney deserve a government that encourages personal responsibility, rewards hard work and allows them to keep more of what they earn. Labor's retiree tax attacks and undermines these values, ripping over $45 billion out of retirement savings. This is part of Labor's plan for more than $200 billion in additional taxes to people's homes, incomes, business and savings. Many of my residents have asked me what they can do to help stop Labor's proposals. I want to congratulate the member for Goldstein, as the chair of the Standing Committee on Economics, for his work in providing opportunities for Australians to raise their concerns with this parliament through that process. We saw the strength of interest in doing that last week in Sydney, and I hope that the committee will visit my own electorate some time in the not-too-distant future. It will provide the opportunity that people so desperately want to raise their concerns about what this proposal will mean to their own livelihoods. Of course, the biggest answer to this problem is simple: don't vote Labor; support a Liberal government that will protect the hard-earned savings of the people of North Sydney and all Australians. Loneliness 103 18:49 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin One in four Australians experience loneliness, and this doesn't discriminate. Loneliness affects all age groups and genders equally. These are the headline findings of the Australian loneliness report, which was released last month. These are not just shocking statistics—and they are extremely concerning; this is a worrying indictment of the state of our society. It is a society in which it would appear half of us say that we feel lonely sometimes or all the time and 30 per cent say they don't belong to a friendship group. This is an urgent call for action. The findings in this report demand a response. They also build on an increasing body of evidence on loneliness in Australia and elsewhere, particularly in the UK, on its prevalence and on its consequences. I've spent the last couple of months talking about loneliness in public forums, through written work and in work with civil society and academics. I first spoke about loneliness in this place in June. When I did, I received responses from people right across the country, many of whom made a point of saying to me that they had never reached out to a politician before. The responses were from people who wanted to share their personal stories of loneliness, many of which were affecting, and from agencies concerned with doing something about what they regard—and I share this view—as a crisis. It is a crisis because loneliness is really bad for those experiencing it. It's associated with poorer mental and physical health. Loneliness can be as harmful as smoking or obesity, according to medical research; it increases mortality by 26 per cent. But it's also bad for all of us that so many Australians feel so anxious about social engagement that they can't engage with their neighbours and, shockingly, that more than one in five rarely or never feel that they have someone they can talk to. This requires us to think hard about how important social relationships are to a good society. I ask: what is the point of 26, perhaps 27, consecutive years of economic growth if this is how so many Australians feel and how they experience their lives? The first time I spoke in this parliament about the policy aspect of loneliness, it was in response to the work done in the UK by the Jo Cox Foundation. It brings me to this point: other countries have taken loneliness much more seriously as a public health and a public policy priority than we have. In the UK, the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness found three areas where strategies could be implemented to reduce loneliness: national leadership, developing national research and funding for initiatives. This, I believe, is a useful template for us to consider and, hopefully, to adopt. The May government—a conservative government, of course—immediately responded to this by appointing a ministerial lead, signalling the seriousness with which it regarded the issue. The May government has just released A connected society: a strategy for tackling loneliness. This is a document that should be required reading as a whole-of-government framework to respond to a whole-of-society challenge—a challenge not just to think about the problem of loneliness in and of itself but also to rethink the provision of social services. I believe that a national response to loneliness in Australia is required, and this is an urgent challenge. This should start with a national conversation. This can provide a wake-up call to individuals and communities about the issue and help reduce the stigma that many feel when it comes to talking about their experience of loneliness. It's not hard or expensive for political leaders to share more widely the work of academic experts and of the civil society groups that have come together—I'm including organisations that many would be familiar with, like the Red Cross, Relationships Australia and the Coalition to End Loneliness—to raise awareness of the prevalence of loneliness and what this means, including the striking fact that loneliness is contagious. This points to the vital importance of strengthening social networks, as well as the need for us to better understand the drivers of loneliness and those interventions which can alleviate it. We need to better understand loneliness in Australia too, to build on the findings contained in the report. This raises many additional questions which need to be answered if we are to be able to better deliver an effective policy response. For example, we need to know more about who is experiencing loneliness in the Australian community beyond simply by age and relationship status. Are particular communities more affected? What has been and what can be the effect of social media on loneliness? I'm concerned that it appears that loneliness particularly impacts socially excluded groups, and this compounds disadvantage elsewhere in society. We could also ask: is loneliness affecting trust more broadly so that it's associated with the destruction of political relationships that we've all been experiencing? This is an important question for anyone who's concerned about the health of our democracy. And is it the case that particular government policies are driving an increase in loneliness? I'm concerned that inequality could play a role, especially given the generational aspect of inequality on the one hand and the concerning number of young Australians who report feeling lonely on the other. There's a discussion underway in the UK about the effects of austerity policies on loneliness, which explores some of this question. It seems possible, at the very least, that cuts to social supports and those places which enable people to come together, such as public libraries, could have an effect. I've spoken very positively of the response of the May government to loneliness as a public policy challenge but I am concerned that its wider record has compounded the need to respond to this challenge. I note that academics Alison Stenning and Sarah Marie Hall have written: We must challenge the government to reconsider the role of austerity in undermining social infrastructures, creating new forms of poverty, weariness and exclusion, and, in these ways, exacerbating loneliness. There is an economic link to loneliness which can be exacerbated by recourse to trickle-down economics. Young people, in particular, entering an uncertain job market in a precarious economy and travelling further to and from their workplaces, have a concerning rate of loneliness. We think about access to transport as important when it comes to amenity generally but not as a driver of loneliness. We note that lonelier young adults are more likely to struggle to find and retain secure employment. That is the cost side. On the benefit side, I note that research done by the London School of Economics has found that every pound spent in the UK on successful loneliness interventions has delivered two to three saved pounds for the community. These are interventions that carry an economic benefit as well as a social one. If we're to take loneliness seriously, we need to support positive policy interventions that actually work. Since I started talking about this as a policy challenge, I've been struck by the number of organisations that have contacted me to inform me of their approach to solving the problem at a local level or their ideas for initiatives that have wider significance. These organisations include a lot of our primary healthcare networks, which are running fantastic initiatives; some sporting organisations; and a very wide range of community groups. I believe that in all of our communities there are successful initiatives that can be reconsidered and debated to see if they can be rolled out, or at least piloted, on a national basis. It's not just about local responses. We need to anchor all of these initiatives in a national, whole-of-government approach as has been adopted in the UK. Addressing loneliness as a society can't simply be about localised initiatives, however impactful they might be on their own terms. This is a challenge that goes fundamentally to how we see our social compact—the compact which connects us as Australians—and how it might be secured. It seems to me that a fairer Australia must be a more connected country. We've seen so much success in programs to reduce loneliness and social isolation amongst older people, and many of us in this place well understand the work of organisations like the Men's Shed Association and U3A. This, of course, isn't just an issue faced by older Australians. Despite young people being more connected through the internet and social media, some of the most troubling statistics relate to young people facing issues of isolation and loneliness. Just because we're seemingly more digitally connected doesn't necessarily mean that online engagement is a real break against social isolation; in fact, some research suggests the opposite. Young people who spend a large amount of time interacting online can suffer anxiety when faced with situations in real life and find it difficult to engage face to face. There aren't easy answers to this. It will take trial and error to find ways to make an enduring difference. I recently proposed a private member's motion that, hopefully, will be debated in the new year. I'd hoped, of course, that it would be debated this week. I'm pleased that the member for Berowra has co-sponsored the motion. This should be a bipartisan issue, in my view. There are going to be differences on both sides of politics as to how we approach governmental responses to loneliness, but there should not be disagreement that we need to face up to it as a problem, as has been the case in the UK. We need to continue the conversation in this place and, more broadly, when we go back to the places we represent. That is what Labor is committed to doing. We need to ensure we have strong Australian research and that we look to funding interventions that make a real difference in people's lives. The findings of the Australian loneliness report can't be ignored. Politicians, policy-makers and all Australians should reflect on what these results say about us and what we can do, individually and as a society, to end loneliness. La Trobe Electorate: Sporting Facilities 105 18:59 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I rise this evening to talk about the desperate need for upgrades to sporting facilities in my electorate of La Trobe. Some are very good, such as the Beaconsfield Football Club—and Officer's is on the way—but then there are clubs like the Berwick Junior Football Club. I recently met with Jennifer Lynn, the vice-president, and Wendy Williams, the president, of the BJFC. Berwick Junior Football Club is a large club that operates with 22 teams, and, combined with the outlet Auskick program, they have over 650 players registered at their club. Over the past two seasons, they have been building their girls' teams, and this season they fielded three small teams and have enough interest to grow to four teams next year. However, they do not have suitable grounds for their girls to train and play on. This season, the girls' team trained at Akoonah Park with no goalposts, no change rooms, low lighting and insufficient toilet facilities. They also played their Berwick home games 20 minutes away at Clyde, a recreational reserve, due to the lack of facilities. Despite the lacklustre infrastructure, the enthusiasm shared by the club's members was truly remarkable, and it's quite incredible, considering how bad the facilities actually are. I'm fighting to deliver to them the funding needed to upgrade their substandard facilities. But we need matching funding from the council and the state Labor government. I think that's only fair. The club needs support in order for them to continue to encourage and accommodate participation of girls and boys in the Berwick Junior Football Club. To improve their facilities up to the standard of surrounding clubs and allow them to grow their female teams in a friendly football atmosphere, they urgently require: the resurfacing of the Berwick Field's playing surface, including installation of an irrigation system; a new electronic scoreboard at Arch Brown Recreation Reserve; and a new electronic scoreboard at Berwick Fields. I also rise to speak about the desperate need to upgrade ageing facilities at the Pakenham Football and Netball Club, where I met Amanda Sidebottom, the logistics lead for female football, the Pakenham club president, Darren Sidebottom, and Jeff Barclay, the club's vice-president. During a recent visit alongside budding netball players, I walked past the female players who were waiting outside the club room in torrential rain. I was taken around and shown a small gymnasium. I walked back after, I think, 15 minutes, and the girls were still standing out in the rain. I asked those who were showing me around, 'Why are they standing in the rain?' They were standing in the rain because they had to wait for the male players to finish using the change room. That is absolutely outrageous and, in a modern society, just shouldn't happen. The club's home ground was built 20 years ago to accommodate only two football teams and one A-grade netball team. With the rate of growth they have experienced in 20 years, they are experiencing issues of where to house their teams. Currently, the club has 100 netball players ranging from under-9 to A-grade open, 30 female senior footballers, with an additional 38 under-18s joining them next year, and 104 senior football players, under-17 to seniors. We also have the Pakenham Junior Football Club, Pakenham Cricket Club and Pakenham Pumas Baseball Club, along with the Little Athletics club, that are all located at one facility. I met Gregg Clutterbuck, the vice-president of Pakenham Pumas Baseball Club, which is one of the few baseball clubs in La Trobe—actually, there aren't many of them in Victoria. The Pakenham Juniors Baseball Club also has no proper facilities, and I'll be fighting to deliver and support this hardworking baseball team. I also met the president of the Pakenham Junior Football Club, Travis Hamilton. They have over 500 young kids playing in their club. I also met with Ian Shaw from the Pakenham Junior Football Club and Phil Anning from the Pakenham Cricket Club, which share the same facilities. The seniors club needs a major upgrade and renovations, as I said before, but the juniors team is actually even worse. They have no showers at all and pretty much no facilities. When it's bucketing down with rain, the players have nowhere to shelter. Once the training is finished, they're lining up in the rain. Again, this is totally unacceptable. This is something which we must address. We must put more federal funding into sport, especially female sport. As I and many other members have found, quite often the men's or the boys' clubs are looked after first, but, in the case of the Pakenham juniors, not even the boys are being looked after. I'd also like to bring the Chamber's attention to the Berwick football and netball clubs of La Trobe and their needs for upgrades. They are in desperate need of numerous regeneration and improvement works. I recently visited the Berwick Football Club and, whilst there, I met with Travis Tuck; Stewart Kemperman, the senior coach; and Madi Andrews, the captain. They were there training. I also met with Peter Hughes, the vice-president. I congratulate Peter. He's done so much work with me to put forward a proposal, and they weren't due for any funding for the next 10 years. Hopefully, we can make something work. They're seeking $4 million to upgrade the footballers' section and also the netball club. They're working in partnership. Again, I saw the same thing with their facilities when I visited; it was a rainy night and the netball players, the girls, don't have the facilities they need at all. It was incredible how upbeat they were, even though the facilities were so bad. The netballers currently have no change rooms or showers for training or game day. They only have two small public toilet cubicles or their cars for changing in and out of their playing gear. There's nowhere to have a shower or even just dry off after training or playing in the rain. There are no home-team or away-team rooms at all. Even for the netball umpires, there are no change rooms or showers; they share two small public cubicles, and the football umpires currently change in a very small brick construction—no showers, no toilets. Not only are all the facilities old and out of date; they do not cater for male and female umpires. Female umpires have to share the male change rooms, which is totally unacceptable. The club's canteen was built over 30 years ago and hasn't been renovated since. The club's current football lighting is dull and below standard; it's really not adequate for senior football training. With two senior teams—under-19s and under-18s—and the start of their female football sides in 2019 or 2020, they need better facilities. The club president, Pete, advised that the club did spend money on the lights over the past few years to try and fix them; however, they are old and need to be replaced. The current lights are also very old technology, which is not the best when it comes to the power bill. The good news is that last election I committed funding to the Gembrook Cockatoo Football Netball Club, and the great news is that councils are matching our $1 million commitment, so designs are underway. We also committed $500,000 to Officer Senior Football Club. They need some more funding, so I'll be fighting again to assist the Officer sporting club. Again, I think it's very important to help fund these sporting clubs, especially for female participation in sport and for juniors' participation in sport. International Human Rights Day 106 19:09 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler December 10 marks International Human Rights Day. On this day we come together as part of a concerned international community to recommit to the cause of human rights. This year's commemoration is particularly significant given that it is 70 years since the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an international instrument which has formed the foundation of the fundamental human rights regimes across the globe. When this declaration was first adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, Australia, through Dr Evatt, was among the eight nations who played a key role in its drafting. Since then Australia's commitment to human rights has been enduring. We have advocated for social justice and human rights within our sphere of influence. We have adhered to these values because we believe that the protection and promotion of human rights is vital to global efforts to achieve lasting peace, security, freedom and dignity for all. Despite ongoing efforts to protect human rights, there are many individuals across the globe that still live with deprivation of the very basic human rights that we would take for granted. In Vietnam, for instance, we see a crackdown on dissidents continuing. The Vietnamese government maintains a monopoly on political power, supported by a justice system that operates on the whim of the government and does not deliver justice without fear or favour. We see a government suppressing any attempt by its citizens to exercise basic freedoms of speech or expression of the rights of association or assembly. I am pleased that the Vietnamese authorities have recently released human rights lawyer Nguyen Van Dai and his colleague Le Thu Ha, but they are now living in exile in Germany. I am also happy that a blogger, Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh, commonly known as Mother Mushroom, has also been released from prison and is now in exile in the United States. It still remains a concern that many human rights activists remain in prison, charged under vague national security laws. On behalf of many concerned Cambodian Australians, I lend my voice in support of human rights and true democracy in Cambodia. I specifically want to acknowledge my constituents Sawathey Ek, Chhayri Marm and Virak Um for their tireless efforts. In Cambodia, Prime Minister Hun Sen has launched a broad crackdown against critical and independent voices. This includes the arrest of the opposition leader, Kem Sokha, the dissolution of the main opposition party and an assault on media organisations and NGOs who have been critical of the government. I strongly condemn the recent Cambodian national elections, which have effectively reinstated the 33-year rule of Prime Minister Hun Sen. These elections, in my opinion, were neither fair nor free. This is a significant setback for democracy in Cambodia, undermining the principal work of the international community, particularly in the lead-up to the Paris Peace Accords, as Cambodia once again returns to being an autocratic one-party state. If this weren't concerning enough, the influence of Hun Sen is now being played out in Australian universities and businesses and various charities in an effort to recruit students and members of the Cambodian diaspora to build an Australian support base for this Cambodian dictator. In the Philippines, where I visited only recently, we have extrajudicial killings as the principal human rights concern, an issue which has certainly escalated with the national war on drugs. Summary and lethal justice, based on mere suspicion, has claimed the lives of many thousands, with some sources now claiming the number could be as high as 20,000 people in the last two years. President Duterte has effectively set aside the rule of law and granted impunity to police—a licence to kill without judicial oversight or accountability. Apart from the grave issues surrounding the policy of extrajudicial killings, President Duterte has also launched a crackdown on civil society, threatening to abolish the Commission on Human Rights, banning various news organisations that are critical of him, castigating the United Nations and their officials and, most recently, withdrawing from the International Criminal Court. One notable critic who has publicly spoken out against the president's murderous war on drugs is Senator Leila de Lima, the former justice secretary. The senator has now been imprisoned without trial since February 2017 on the strength of untested statements from a convicted drug lord and police. Out of Myanmar there have been horrific reports of ethnic cleansing carried out by the Myanmar security forces in Rakhine State. The ethnic cleansing campaign against the Rohingya people is a reprehensible crime against humanity. Evidence from a number of investigations, particularly those conducted by Human Rights Watch, have documented extrajudicial killings; torture; suffering of Rohingya women, men and children; the destruction, arson and takeover of more than 300 villages by the Myanmar security forces; and endemic rape and sexual violence. These are horrendous acts committed by the Myanmar military, and have resulted in a humanitarian crisis of a catastrophic proportion. This has resulted in the displacement of more than 700,000 Rohingya people as refugees into neighbouring Bangladesh. I have also been moved by the very touching stories of one of my constituents, Zulfia Erk—a very passionate advocate for the Uygur community, having been personally affected by the current human rights situation in China. Five of her brothers are being held in detention camps in Xinjiang, China. A recent report released by Human Rights Watch highlights the gravity of the situation, providing evidence of China's arbitrary detention and mistreatment of the Rohingya population. Throughout the region, the Turkic Muslim population of 13 million people are subjected to restrictions on movement, mass surveillance and limitations on their religious freedoms. What is interesting about all of these nations is that they share a common view, a very flexible view, about the rule of law. They have courts that fail to administer justice without fear or favour and police that carry out the will of the government, as opposed to independently enforcing the law. As members of the international community, we have a moral, if not legal, responsibility to do all we can to encourage countries in our region to adhere to their international obligations. The rule of law is the fundamental cornerstone for the advancement of human rights. These principles are not mutually exclusive and must operate in conjunction with one another. Without one, the other fails to operate with any degree of legitimacy. Human rights are not merely notions that we should aspire to uphold, ideas or principles that we can pick and choose from when we feel the time is right. Human rights are the foundations that underpin our democratic values, allowing the creation of strong and inclusive communities. Our international relations shouldn't just be about economics, trade developments or regional stability; they should also be about the promotion and encouragement of human rights, and challenging our partners, whoever they might be, as to whether they are honouring their international human rights obligations. We must work towards a region in which our courts administer justice without fear or favour, where freedom of expression and freedom of religion are realities, where police and law enforcement agencies act in accordance with the law and are held accountable for their actions. We cannot remain silent when people's human rights are being blatantly trampled. We must work together with our neighbouring nations to ensure there is respect for the rule of law. We must appreciate that, when the rule of law is sidelined, bad things will happen. Invariably, the first casualty is always human rights itself. Therefore, silence is not, in my opinion, an option when the rule of law is being undermined. On this note, I would like to conclude with the words of a very famous social justice campaigner, former South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu. He said: If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. Economy 108 19:18 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It's time to take stock of not just Australia's but also the global structural economic imbalances that leave us, and many others countries, economically vulnerable to shocks. The reality is that complacency has exposed the world to incredible financial instability that should make everybody mindful of the circumstances and the times in which we live. Global debt has recently hit a new high of $337 trillion. That is in combination with excessive quantitative easing following the global financial crisis, particularly in the United States but other countries as well; globally low interest rates that have been held stubbornly low in many markets for long periods of time, and that includes our own; questionable banking frameworks and regulatory environments, as well as, of course, the vulnerability that has come from recent outbursts in trade wars, although, thankfully, that now looks to be stabilising somewhat; and, of course, political volatility in countries that one should be able to depend upon. There's no single red flag; there are multiple triggers in the global economy today. There are plenty of signs that show that there are reasons why we should be concerned—not out of an obsessive pursuit of fear but out of a mindfulness and a cautious position to make sure that, as Australians, we can be confident that we are in the best position to weather storms. Look at the signs. There's Turkey's economic and political turmoil. Of course, as I mentioned before, there is the risk of a Trump trade war with China, which seems to have eased somewhat, or at least there is a truce, but it could easily flare up again. There is the ongoing tension that sits between the European Union and the United Kingdom around their Brexit deal, which is facing very difficult challenges and could have significant economic impacts across the continent and, of course, the financial stability of the United Kingdom. We also have more serious concerns. Unlike Brexit, there is the Italian debt crisis, which has the capacity to send the euro into collapse if not handled properly. Still wounded from Greece's debt crisis, Italy's fiscal mess is starting to epitomise all of the fundamental flaws of the eurozone, where debt is used simply as a vehicle to finance and resolve problems for today without looking at the fundamental and deep structural challenges that the mad pursuit of social democracy takes you to, where people are dissuaded from their enterprise and their ambition. They're anaesthetised to the challenges of life and the capacity needed to adjust to changing circumstances; they're instead in favour of dependence on the state because, at some point, the buck stops with somebody who has to pay. When you suck the life out of your private sector and those who pay tax, you will only have a long-term negative effect. At 132 per cent of GDP, Italy's total government debt is, frankly, shocking and frightening, especially as Fitch Ratings actively consider higher risk premiums for that debt. When facing economic turmoil, debt is the great multiplier, by its nature. That's the whole point. Debt is merely the extrapolation of security. Bond markets are restless as Rome pledges money it doesn't have to fill populous policies and promises. If Italian bonds are downgraded, individuals, families, companies and financial institutions will feel the tremor all across Europe. But the truth is that it will go across the globe. Monetary policy interventions are no silver bullet at this time. The European Central Bank is already trying to wind back an exhaustive quantitative easing portfolio, meaning an ejection of extra liquidity into Italy's banking system isn't likely. But we also need to be honest about what happens when you have quantitative easing. You borrow from the future to pay for today. You steal from future generations by propping up the value of assets, making them further out of reach of those who are not part of the asset-owning class to protect those who are. Quantity of easing is theft. It is theft from the future, from the poor to prop up the rich. It is morally wrong. This will be much worse than Greece. Italy is the currency bloc's third largest economy and accounts for 11 per cent of the EU's gross domestic product. That's big enough to inflict collateral damage internationally. Unfortunately, some other countries don't learn these lessons. Let's look at ourselves. Ten years ago, when the sirens were sounding, Australia had a healthy budget position. In fact, we weren't just in surplus but had net savings after a long period of economic growth and economic structural reform. We had more flexible labour markets and strong foreign demand for our mineral resources. Lower interest rates and a major exchange rate depreciation insulated us from harm during the global financial crisis. Flexibility for the Reserve Bank delivered. High mineral prices delivered. That should have been the focus, with tax reform, to get us Australia through. Instead, we had an excessive focus on stimulus by the Australian Labor Party, and we are still carrying the burden of the debt which comes with that today. Of course, it has meant that it has been harder to fund services that we want to provide while we have continued to service that debt. The truth is that we are in a more difficult situation than we were when the crisis started. We were then, and it's continued to grow. In practical terms, it has to be the case, particularly because we know where the growth and spiralling increase in spending has gone as a direct consequence of the challenges of an ageing population. That means that the time for prudence and responsibility is now—of course, it has been 'now' for a while. The Morrison government will be delivering the first budget surplus in a decade next year. It is a great achievement to be able to put this country on a more stable financial footing. But let's be frank: if we had had more cooperation from our political opponents we might have been able to get there earlier. In the past 20 years, the household debt to income ratio has doubled, and now sits at almost 200 per cent. Australia's net debt was $1.004 trillion in September. We have other challenges, like the significant dependence of the states on stamp duty. The Commonwealth is heavily dependent on income tax for its revenue base. And, of course, we have high leverage as a consequence of house prices, directly associated with lower long-run interest rates. Frankly, the biggest risk that we face today is the election of a Labor government. What we need to do is be prudent and responsible in working through the structural challenges this country faces. We need serious tax reform. Political opponents across the other side of the chamber said we need to take the debt seriously. We are; we are delivering a surplus. But, more critically, if you want to deal with the debt, you actually need to cut spending. Those are two words that you will never hear uttered out of the mouths of those opposite. Instead, we see from those opposite an obsessive focus on trying to raid the savings of retirees—a new tax in which people lose money, which is pretty extraordinary when you think about it—and a focus around dissuading people from investing in markets for fear that they will be taxed excessively and disproportionately to their investment. US demographer Harry Dent accurately predicted the 2008 crash. We have seen recent events on the markets and many of us are asking: is this a moment that is a precursor to something greater? Certainly there have been many predictions that property prices could drop significantly—between 40 per cent and in some cases 50 per cent. The question for us now is what we do, not just as a parliament, not just as a government, but as a nation. The time for prudence and responsibility is now. The time to drive tax reform to improve this country and broaden the base of our tax system to make it sustainable is now. If we don't, we raise very serious challenges about this country's long-term economic security. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of debate will be made an order for the next day's sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:29   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 110 QUESTIONS IN WRITING GST (Question No. 1053) 110 1053 Mr Josh Wilson 265970 In respect of the Government's announcement on 5 July 2018 of a proposed transition to a new Horizontal Fiscal Equalisation mechanism for determining the allocation of GST revenue to states and territories as well as the establishment of a minimum floor of 70 cents from 2022-23, rising to 75 cents from 2024-25, with measures to deliver an effective 70 cent floor to Western Australia from 2019-20: (a) on what date    (i) was the Treasury first instructed to undertake the modelling or other analysis that was the foundation of this proposal,    (ii) did the Treasury first provide this modelling or other analysis to the office of the Treasurer, and    (iii) did the Treasurer first take this proposal to the Cabinet for consideration, and(b) why was the commitment to provide funding to Western Australia to ensure the state receives an equivalent GST allocation of 70 cents not made in the 2018-19 budget. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a)    (i) The Treasurer requested modelling and analysis of horizontal fiscal equalisation (HFE) reforms from Treasury following the delivery of the Productivity Commission's (PC) final report on its inquiry into HFE to government on 15 May 2018.    (ii) Treasury provided modelling and analysis to the Treasurer as part of the policy development process, ahead of the release of the interim response.    (iii) Treasury provides advice and analysis to the Treasurer. It is up to the Treasurer to determine how this advice is circulated. (b) The Government's commitment to provide short-term funding over three years (from 2019-20 to 2021-22) to ensure that no State receives less than 70 cents per person per dollar of GST was announced as part of its interim response to the PC inquiry into HFE on 5 July 2018. Department: Lost, stolen or misplaced equipment (Question No. 1067) 110 1067 Mr Keogh 249147 In 2017-18, what sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment in all ministerial offices supported by the Minister's department, and what goods were replaced? Mr Hunt 00AMV My Department is unaware of any items that have been lost, stolen or misplaced in any of the ministerial offices supported by the Department. Economy (Question No. 1133) 110 1133 Mr Georganas DZY Can the Government explain how the Australian National Contact Point (AusNCP) has improved outcomes.(2) How many specific complaints relating to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (a) have been resolved, and (b) are outstanding.(3) What is the average processing time for mediation and conciliation cases once a complaint is raised.(4) Has the Government received any advice to provide additional resources or legislative changes to improve the AusNCP; if so, what (a) was the advice, and (b) has the Government done to implement these changes. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The AusNCP is responsible for promoting and implementing the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The Guidelines are recommendations addressed by governments to multinational enterprises operating in or from adhering countries. They represent a global framework for responsible business conduct which can positively influence business activity and ultimately economic, environmental and social progress. In the past year the AusNCP has increased its promotional work to a broader network of stakeholders, including events held in Sydney and Canberra in October 2017, June 2018, and further events planned for November 2018. The AusNCP also offers a non-judicial complaint handling mechanism to help parties resolve conflicts. The focus of the mechanism is to bring parties together for dialogue that may lead to resolution and increased awareness of the Guidelines. The AusNCP has no legal powers to order compensation or other forms of redress, but it can make recommendations to enterprises in line with the Guidelines. (2) As at 25 September 2018, the AusNCP has 15 concluded cases and two (2) active cases. One (1) of the concluded cases is currently subject to further follow-up by the AusNCP at the request of the notifier. Further details on the specific instance complaints handled by the AusNCP are available at www.ausncp.gov.au. (3) The AusNCP has closed four (4) cases where mediation (or similar) was conducted. The shortest duration of ten (10) months was for a case where the issue arose within Australia. The other cases all related to issues that occurred in non-adhering countries, these cases took 23, 43 and 45 months. In the past 12-18 months the AusNCP has reduced the overall case load by putting significant effort into progressing cases that had been with the AusNCP for a protracted period. In July 2018 following consultation with stakeholders, the AusNCP released revised specific instance handling procedures which are intended to improve case handling timeframes into the future. Consistent with OECD guidance, the current procedures state that in ideal scenarios the AusNCP aims to complete the mediation stage (which can involve mediation or conciliation) in 25-30 weeks and the full process in 48-55 weeks. OECD guidance on timing recognises that timeframes may need to be extended particularly when the issues arise in a non-adhering country. Other common factors that can affect timing include the complexity of the case, willingness of parties to engage in the process and whether mediation (or similar) is undertaken. For these reasons, average case processing time is generally not a reliable indicator of effective outcomes. (4) In 2017 the Treasury commissioned an independent review into the AusNCP's administrative structure and the final report of this review was provided to Treasury in October 2017. The report's recommendations included suggesting that Treasury assign a dedicated staff and budget to the AusNCP. Resourcing for the AusNCP was increased in 2017 to enable improvements. The review made no recommendations in relation to legislative changes, although Treasury notes that the function is not currently legislated and this is not required by the OECD Guidelines. Further recommendations including restructuring to a model independent of government, developing revised procedural guidance and developing a proactive engagement strategy. The full report is available on the AusNCP website at www.ausncp.gov.au.