PRIVILEGE

2018-12-05 45 1 7 House of Reps 0 0

Wednesday, 5 December 2018

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

PRIVILEGE 12557 PRIVILEGE 09:31 The SPEAKER 00APG On 29 November the member for Tangney raised as a matter of privilege whether, during the inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the 2016 election, the committee had been provided with false and misleading information by GetUp! such as to substantially obstruct the committee in the performance of its functions in relation to the inquiry. The member for Tangney presented as supporting information a letter from him to the chair of the committee. The member for Tangney indicated that the committee had considered the matter and had concluded that GetUp! had provided false and misleading information to the committee and the provision of the false and misleading information substantially obstructed the committee in the performance of its functions, and authorised the member for Tangney to raise the issue as a matter of privilege in the House. I have had the opportunity to review the matter raised by the member and the detailed supporting information. I accept that the events outlined in the member for Tangney's letter show that GetUp! appeared to be less than forthcoming with the information in response to the committee's queries and that the information provided did not seem to be consistent. I note in relation to the principal matter on which the committee was seeking information—namely, the results of GetUp!'s 2016 election survey—that ultimately GetUp! provided the full results of the survey in response to a possible summons. I also do not dispute the view expressed by the committee that it considers it has been provided with false and misleading information and that, as a result, its work has been impeded. The task for me under the standing orders, though, is to determine two issues. The first is whether the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity. I appreciate that this matter has been on foot for some time, but I understand that the member for Tangney has only just received the committee's view about the matter, and so I accept that it has been raised with me at the earliest opportunity. The second is whether there is a prima facie case of contempt. There is a significant hurdle in section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 as to whether a matter constitutes a contempt. To constitute a contempt, conduct needs to amount, or be intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by the committee of its authority or functions. In considering these matters it is important to recognise that the penal jurisdiction of the House is significant, and it should be exercised with restraint. Although I can see that the conduct of GetUp! in response to queries from the committee was unhelpful and at times misleading, it is not clear to me that the conduct was done intentionally to interfere with the committee in a way that was improper. Also, although the committee work was impeded, I do not see that it has prevented the committee from being able to freely perform its functions and exercise its authority and properly report to the House on its inquiry. For these reasons, I do not propose to give precedence to a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. I thank the House. COMMITTEES 12558 COMMITTEES Corporations and Financial Services Committee 12558 Reporting Date 12558 09:35 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate: That the time for the presentation of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on its inquiry into the Franchising Code of Conduct and Oil Code of Conduct be extended to 14 February 2019. RESOLUTIONS OF THE SENATE 12558 RESOLUTIONS OF THE SENATE Live Animal Exports 12558 Consideration of Senate Message 12558 09:35 The SPEAKER 00APG The following message from the Senate has been received: The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day: That the Senate calls on the Federal Government to legislate to phase out long-haul live sheep exports. The Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in this resolution. 09:35 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 09:36 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I move, as an amendment: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the message be considered immediately". How come in every other industry we say 'value add'? We say, 'Do everything you can to make the product as valuable as you can in Australia before export,' but not this industry. We say to the live export industry: 'It's fine, send the sheep over there. We don't care.' The 60 Minutes report left Australians aghast and disgusted, and initially the minister for agriculture was horrified, but now we have moved away. We have had eight months and people in this place think that this matter has gone away. Let me tell you, for my community this matter has not gone away. For the Australian community this matter has not gone away. We have the opportunity here to be on the front foot, to follow the lead of New Zealand—albeit 20 years behind New Zealand—to value add and to process here and, over five years, to phase out live sheep export. We know that this is a declining industry. We know that this is an industry that the rest of the world is moving away from. I cannot for the life of me understand why we are holding on to this. We should be processing all of our animals here onshore in Australia. This is a wonderful opportunity to grow jobs in regional Australia. My electorate has one large abattoir, being Thomas Foods International at Lobethal. They run two shifts. I have talked to Thomas foods about this. They would, obviously, like to grow their business and run a third shift. At Murray Bridge, just outside of my electorate, Thomas foods has another abattoir. We have a disused abattoir at Normanville. Just $6 million is all that's needed to get that abattoir up and running. These are the best jobs in regional Australia, from the perspective of permanency and a good wage. We should be encouraging the production of our long-haul sheep in Australia. We should not be sending these animals, who have no say, out on to those huge, hulking vessels. We know that the mortality rates with these long-haul trips are very high. We can't control that. We know that there has been a culture within the department of fear and of not sharing information and, quite frankly, I don't think that we can trust this industry to manage itself. We need to transition away from this industry and actually look at this as an opportunity for our industry, for sheep, for farmers and for people living in regional Australia to have good quality jobs. Thank you. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the amendment seconded? 09:39 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison I second the amendment and I will take this opportunity to say a few words. It is very important that we debate this matter this morning and as a matter of urgency, because the fact is that a great many members of the community are expecting this parliament to finally act on the cruelty in the live animal export trade and in particular the terrible cruelty being suffered by sheep in the long-haul sheep trade to the Middle East. It is an undeniable fact that the live animal export trade is systemically cruel. How many more exposes do we need to see before this place understands it is systemically cruel and shuts it down? It is also an undeniable fact that the only way to end the cruelty is to put an end to the trade. Who can forget those shocking images from the Awassi Expresssome time ago? It was a voyage on which tens of thousands of sheep suffered horrid conditions: the filth, the heat, the overcrowding and those images of lambs that were born on the vessel—when it is not even allowed for there to be pregnant sheep on such a vessel—just suffocating or drowning in the faeces and the filth, and the sheep panting. It was a voyage on which thousands of sheep died. And don't believe the nonsense from some in the industry that that was an exceptional episode—that that is not the normal situation on those sheep ships on the long haul to the Middle East—because all of the evidence is that that was a typical voyage. It was an insight into the way the industry has worked, is working now and will work into the future. Of course, the Awassi Express was just the latest revelation. What about the images we saw of Australian sheep being buried alive in Pakistan? And it is not just sheep. What about the images that came out of the slaughterhouses in Indonesia several years ago? What about the reports of cruelty to Australian livestock in Vietnam, in Malaysia and in any number of countries throughout the Middle East, including countries that you would think would know better—countries like Israel and Turkey? The fact is that the evidence is in. It's been in for ages. It is a systemically cruel trade, and the only way to end the cruelty is to end the trade, starting with getting rid of the long-haul export of live sheep to the Middle East. And do you know what? That will be in this country's best interests, in at least three obvious ways. For a start— The SPEAKER 00APG If the member for Denison could resume his seat for a second—and this is to be helpful to the House—I need to remind members that the question before the House is whether we consider the matter immediately; it is not the substantive question. Just to remind members, and for those who have just come in, the Leader of the House moved that the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Mayo has moved an amendment to the effect that all those words be removed and the matter be considered immediately. So, until that is dealt with, there can be no consideration, either later or today, of the matter of substance. I just want to remind members of that. The member for Denison. Mr WILKIE C2T Thank you, Speaker. The reason I'm going into such detail during this debate is to impress upon the House how dire the situation is and how urgent the need is to act on this. We can't wait until sometime early next year in the hope that it will be debated then. There are ships afloat as we speak. There are vessels around this country, right now, being readied for the next voyage. It would be a shockingly irresponsible act for this House to put off this matter until next year, in the full knowledge that putting it off will result directly in cruelty continuing and more Australian cattle and sheep dying. That's why we really must deal with this today. The community expects us to deal with it today. Surely all the members in this House—certainly we are on the crossbench—are being inundated with written letters, phone calls, emails and petitions. The country is demanding urgent action. The country is demanding that we deal with this today—not in February or March or sometime. That's too late. Too much cruelty will occur between now and then. Too many animals will suffer shocking experiences and death between now and then. That's why we must deal with this today. And it's not just the cruelty; there's also the impact on this country in so many other ways between now and next year—the fact that this trade costs thousands of Australian jobs, the fact that this trade greatly diminishes this country's reputation as an ethical food producer and the fact that this country has lost faith in governance and our democratic institutions and is losing faith, or has lost faith, in this place and us and what we do. We're just going to throw fuel on the fire. We're going to provide further proof to the community that we're letting them down if we put this off. We can't put it off. We must deal with it immediately. If the government are sure of their position and their numbers, they should be happy to have the debate, to have the battle of ideas, for the government to stand up here today and try to defend this vile trade. And, sure enough, a lot of us will stand here and put the government in their place and remind the government today of those shocking scenes of cruelty on the Awassi Express, remind the government today of those Australian sheep that were buried alive in Pakistan—and probably no-one's been held to account—and remind the government of the scenes we've seen of Australian sheep being shoved into boots in illegal marketplaces in any number of countries. How on earth the government could think it would be appropriate to not deal with this today beggars belief; it absolutely beggars belief. The government cannot put this off today and argue that the Moss review has solved the problem, that there's no need to debate this today—because that wonderful Moss review has addressed the issue! But of course the Moss review was a whitewash. It is no reason for us to put this debate off today. All the Moss review did was make some interesting observations, make some recommendations about some safeguards, some tougher penalties. But at the end of the day the Moss review came down fairly and squarely in support of the trade and in support of the trade continuing. So it is no defence for the government today to say that we do not need to debate this motion from the Senate today, because the matter has been dealt with. That would be grossly misleading by the government. So I make the point in the strongest possible terms: we have a moral responsibility—and I would say a professional responsibility—to represent the Australian community and to debate this today, because the Australian community hates the live animal export trade. It hates it with a passion, is sick of all the exposes on the TV, is sick of the inaction and the half-measures, is sick of the whitewashes, is sick of the excuses, is sick of the myths and the lies that surround this and of claims that the Middle East won't buy frozen or chilled meat, when they're already buying three times the value of live exports from Australia in sheepmeat. We have to address this today. This parliament has to start representing the community. This parliament has to stand up for animal welfare. This parliament has to take positive steps to stop the cruelty by shutting down the trade. So, in the strongest possible terms, I urge the government: step back from your intention to put this off to next year, and understand that the public interest will be served by debating this motion from the Senate today. If you're confident of your position, then stand up at the despatch box and make your case, and we'll stand up here and we'll respond to it. And let's have a battle of ideas, because you've lost the argument. The community hates it with a passion, hates that we would continue this cruelty to prop up several thousand workers, a couple of hundred farmers and a few dodgy exporters. Why don't we start thinking about the 25 million Australians in this country and not the few thousand in the live animal export trade? Why don't we start representing them? Why don't we do that? Then, come the next election, maybe people won't be so cynical about politicians. You might even improve your stocks. I say to the minister: if you're wondering why your stocks are at rock bottom, why you're bumbling along at 45 per cent, it is because you don't represent the community. This is another example. But you will be representing the community, if only by allowing this motion from the Senate to be debated and letting the people's voices be heard through the members of the crossbench and the other sensible people who oppose the live trade. (Time expired) 09:50 Mr JOYCE E5D New England With the member for Denison, we got to the point right at the end where he said, 'For these few thousand in the export trade, why do we worry about them?' We worry about them because it is their livelihood. They are actually the ones who are going to become poorer if this motion goes forward and if this motion succeeds. There seems to be little regard for the people in Western Australia or in the western districts of New South Wales who have underpinned their price of sheep, on a substantial basis, on the live export trade. The member for Denison also mentioned myths and lies. Let's deal with a few of those myths and lies. The last ship had 0.16 mortality; I think it was about 50. That means that well in excess of 99.8 per cent walked off the ship. That's the truth. The truth is that it is a successful trade. Let's also go to the Awassi Express. We've been doing some digging around here. Who did take that footage on the Awassi Express? Who was the person who took that footage? Where was that person? The information I have is that it was the person who was actually responsible for looking after the sheep. That is the person who took the footage. He is now residing in Pakistan, after receiving about $200,000. The person who was responsible for looking after them is the one who has made the profit from that going out. If that person had been doing their job, we wouldn't have the footage. These are the sorts of issues, myths and lies that you are dealing with. This is how this nefarious process of the activist industry works. Are we going to reward that even further? Why was it that, on that ship, they said, 'In the other areas, we didn't have this problem'? I listened with respect to the member for Denison; that's exactly how the debate works around here. They yell and scream, and they don't listen with respect. Mr Wilkie interjecting— Mr JOYCE E5D There it is, right there in front of you. That's who they are. Why was it that on other levels of that ship we didn't have the same problems? These are the questions that people are asking. Why was it? Where was the person who was responsible for looking after them? Well, he was the person who took the footage. He has now sold the footage, he has been paid and he is living happily in Pakistan. I think he has got in excess of $200,000 for it. Is this what we are going to premise this motion on? How about we dispense with the myths and lies and deal with the truth? When are we going to stop rewarding a person for their malfeasance by saying, 'Not only is he going to get $200,000 but we are going to shut the whole trade down'? I will also go to the point in the member for Denison's speech where he said: 'Australians hate the trade. All of us hate the trade.' We know that is completely incorrect. I can tell you that, for one, I don't. People in North Queensland don't, people in Western Australian don't and people in the South West of Western Australia, who rely on this to get a better return back through the farm gate, don't. I know the green-shirt brigade, who are out there trying to make sure that we maintain agricultural industries, don't. I know that we have been fighting for them, just like when they closed down the live cattle trade. People went broke and people committed suicide because the value of their place was absolutely destroyed by the reckless actions of those who did not live on their farms, who did not work in their industries and who did not have the to deal with the consequences of the actions of this chamber. We are not going to let that happen again. We are going to stand up for these people and make sure that we respect their rights. The member for Denison doesn't believe in the live sheep trade. The member for Denison— Mr Wilkie interjecting— Mr JOYCE E5D There he is. The member for Denison doesn't believe in the live cattle trade. I can tell you where it is going, because I have heard it from the member of Bendigo. This will go into the transport trade and into the movement of cattle and the movement of sheep. It will then go back to the farm and further impose the caveats of the government on how people run their farms. This, of course, is the movement of the government into the private commerce of rural industry. We must stand up on behalf of the people of rural industry, because we know the member for Denison won't and we know the Greens won't. The SPEAKER 00APG The member of Denison on a point of order. Mr Wilkie C2T I suggest that the member for New England speak to the motion. The SPEAKER 00APG I will deal with this matter. I did raise this with the member for Denison. I did that gently in the interests of the debate. The member for Denison did then say why he thought the matter was urgent, but I don't think that the member for Denison in all good conscience can now look back at his speech and say that it did not cover precisely the same sorts of issues that the member for New England is covering. If members want me to strictly enforce all of these sorts of things, I'll essentially censor the debate, but I think that the member for Mayo and the member for Denison spoke very broadly. That was their choice. That means we are now debating the question very broadly, and the member for New England may proceed. Mr JOYCE E5D The reason that this should not have urgency is that, with the evidence I have just given to the House then, you don't have all the facts. Something as important as the question asked with the Awassi Express, which was the inflammatory proposition that was put forward to drive this agenda, as the activist industry always do—remembering that they don't believe in closing the live sheep trade; they believe in closing the live cattle trade and they believe in following up— Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 Rubbish! Mr JOYCE E5D I will take the interjection. He says it's lies and rubbish, yet it completely confounds what— The SPEAKER 00APG Members are not going to take interjections. The member for Hunter is out of line. If he wants to participate in the debate, he is not going to yell wildly. Mr JOYCE E5D I say to the member for Hunter: it was the member for Denison himself, the seconder of this amendment motion, who, prior to my speaking, said that it would also involve the live cattle trade, yet the member for Hunter is going to support the member for Denison and thereby, in so doing, concur with his views that the live cattle trade should be shut down. That is exactly where they are going. The Australian people have been down this path before. I remember that, when I was the shadow minister for water, I was the first minister out on the doorstep, after they closed down the live cattle trade, saying, 'This is absolutely the wrong thing to do and is going to cause massive problems, especially with our relationship with Indonesia, as we are the supplier of protein to the city of Jakarta.' And it was. Now everybody looks back and says, 'That was a terrible idea,' yet the member for Denison has said, 'It's about the live cattle as well.' He is not refuting it, and the member for Hunter is now going to concur with his views and support it, thereby, in so doing, supporting the closure of the live cattle trade. They are back at it again. It didn't take them long. They're back in that place again. I say: get all the evidence; don't give us a script. Do not give us a somehow conjured-up form of selected facts. Find all the facts. Find the person who took that footage on the Awassi Express. I tell you what: the people have come to my office, so you can give me their names. Find it, so you can have a proper discussion about how this issue was constructed—and I say constructed—for the purpose of creating massive damage to the live sheep export industry in such a way as to shut it down, to inflame views and to create myths and lies about the mortality rates on ships and about exactly where that footage came from. It was not done surreptitiously by someone who sneaked onto the ship; it was done by an employee whose job it was to look after the sheep. That was their job. They made more money out of not doing their job than out of doing it and, by so doing, created massive damage and a massive problem for the live sheep industry. I tell you what: I'm going to be supporting the live sheep industry, because I am sick of being part of a process of making people on the land poorer. That was always what was happening here. Every move was about taking more rights away from people on the land and taking more income from people on the land. We have to stand up for people on the land and make sure a better return goes through the farm gate. We have to make sure that we maintain the profit that they have, the first in a long time—for some of them, basically over the last decade. They have the right to renovate their kitchens. They have the right to go on holidays. People who work on the land have the same right as other people to make money. What the member for Denison and his supporters want to do is make them poorer once again. 10:00 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy There is the issue of time: whether we do it straight away or whether we don't. I think the government should be given a couple more months to do this—and then there is a very strong case that the people behind me are putting up if they haven't moved to do so. This is pretty simple, really. The overseers on the boats—some people call them cowboys, but I don't like to denigrate cowboys so I won't call them that—have no qualifications and have no responsibilities placed upon them. No-one oversights what they are doing or not doing. I have spoken to a number of these 'ship stock overseers' and they say it is fine if you are doing your job properly. That bloke on that boat was not doing his job at all. The government has been absolutely remiss here. Surely it is not complicated to set up an authorisation process so that, if you want to be a ship stock overseer, you would do a course and be subject to continuous scrutiny. Frankly, I can't see why cameras can't be put on these boats permanently. I think every Australian would agree that we don't like seeing cruelty to animals—though it is rather fascinating that in Queensland, where I come from, we are not worried about people being torn to pieces by crocodiles every six months. We are not worried about little children being murdered before they are born. We are not worried about farmworkers and suppliers and contractors to the industry who commit suicide at the rate of one a week. We are not worried about people. The lily pad leftie club, the perpetually shocked and horrified brigade, are shocked and horrified over the killing of whales but it doesn't matter how many people get killed or torn to pieces. Being killed by a crocodile is the most cruel death you can have. They are not worried about that. Let's have a look at the live sheep trade. We have the model because you people were successful with the live cattle trade. I'll tell you what you achieved. You halved the price of cattle in this country. I would say that half the cattlemen in my electorate would have under 100 head of cattle; they are little fellows, and they probably have a job in the council. They immediately went into a loss situation. I said there was one suicide a fortnight, but it turned out that I was wrong; there was a suicide every week. Did that help the workers in the meatworks? You people say that Australians should be getting jobs. Did it help them? No, because our cattle numbers drop dramatically. In fact, meatworks closed as a result. They couldn't make a quid out of the cattle and they couldn't look after them. In northern Australia, where nearly half our cattle are, they die if you don't supplementary feed them late in the year. There was no money to supplementary feed them late in the year, so they simply died and the numbers fell. So the meat works were at a loss. Let's talk about the people we sell to, the Indonesians. About 20 million people go to bed hungry every night in Indonesia. You say they can't afford to buy beef. Tiny little bits of beef provide a balanced diet with their rice, as does fish. Now, you cut off their food supply—an essential food supply. There is no way that they could afford to buy Australian product processed through our meatworks, with the enormous burdens placed upon our meatworks to meet all of the requirements with respect to health, hygiene and pay and conditions for our workers, but I particularly emphasise pay and conditions. The people in the Liberal Party always say, 'The problem is that wages are too high.' I have always believed that the great thing about my country is that we have the highest wages in the world. My objective is that our workers will be the highest paid workers in the world. But is it helping them? No, it isn't, because the meatworks are closing. We had nine meatworks in North Queensland; now we have one. I'm not saying all of that was attributable to this situation. You must judge a decision by its outcomes. We know the outcomes that are going to occur. We saw what happened in the cattle industry. The prices dropped clean in half. These poor people! And don't think about the farmers. If I pick the midwestern gulf towns, there are only about 300 farmers and there are about a thousand workers supporting the industry. They are mailmen. They are shearers. They are musterers. They are helicopter flyers and technicians. So you have 300 people there. What happened with the other 2,000 people was that we went to a suicide every fortnight in the cattle industry as a result of the live cattle decision. So you want to go and cry about animals, but the lily-pad Left never cry about people. They seem to have no concern about people whatsoever. That's the score in Queensland. That's the score for everybody to see in Queensland. Here is the lily-pad Left government—or here is their concern for human beings. It doesn't matter how many of them get torn to pieces every six months by a crocodile or how many of them commit suicide, which is going on and on and on, or how many are murdered before they're born. There's absolutely no caring about any of these things. The diabetes issue hasn't been raised by one of the lily-pad Left in this place ever. They say of our First Australians, 'Oh, we want recognition for them.' Well, get in quick because there'll be none of us left by the time we get to recognition in the Constitution. There'll be none of us left alive at the present rate. And I'll quote the figures yet again. Out of our 67,000 people, 150 die from diabetes and closely related diseases. There are probably about 300 dying from malnutrition really, but I'll just say 150 because those numbers are what I can prove. No-one here has raised the issue—not ever—yet you'll cry and howl about sheep. I'll conclude on this note: the government knew about the situation of live cattle for four years. The minister, the department and Meat and Livestock Australia knew for four years, and they did absolutely nothing about it. Quite frankly, there is nothing in process and, with all due respect to the minister, there's nothing in process that I see that is going to change this. I listen to my colleagues here, and they have a point to make, and it's a point I agree with: we don't want to see animal cruelty. I desperately don't want to go to the other extreme and see cruelty to human beings, which, there is no doubt, they are imposing. You've got a choice of whether you want cruelty to animals or cruelty to human beings. Well, there's a third choice: you can have cruelty to neither. It is simple: like you get a licence to drive a car, so the ship stock overseer has a licence. He is trained and he has a licence, and he makes a good income, as they do, from this job. If he does not do his job, he loses his licence; he can no longer drive the car—or, in this case, drive the ship. This is not rocket science. In the case of the live cattle industry, the government's performance was absolutely appalling. After two months, they had not sent one single knocking gun, knocking box or video screen, nor had they made any effort to authorise the proper killing of the animals in Indonesia. (Time expired) 10:10 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I also rise to speak on the motion on live sheep exports. The MP for New England is quite correct when he says to dispense with the myths and the lies. What we hear from the member for Denison is a whole lot of emotive speech, a whole lot of myths and a whole lot of mistruths in many ways. The first thing he says is that we are not representing 25 million people. The member for Denison in no way represents 25 million people, although he makes out that he knows what 25 million people think. The member for Denison is probably lucky to have 70,000 voters in his electorate. He might represent 100,000 voters. There are 150 MPs in this place, Member for Denison. I heard the member for Mayo raise this. I couldn't help but come in here from my office and speak on this motion, given the mistruths that the member for Denison has just raised. In 2011, I was holidaying with my family around Australia. I took six months off to spend time with my kids. When I was in Western Australia, one of the things that struck me was that the Labor government had just shut down the cattle industry. It was one of the things that prompted me to run for parliament, because when I was in Western Australia I saw the pain and the hurt that was being inflicted on Western Australian farmers at that time. They were crying out to get income in through their gates. They were asking people like me, who were travelling with their family in a small caravan, to stay on their property, because they had no income because the Labor government had shut down the industry overnight on a whim. The member for New England is also right when he says to the opposition shadow minister that the goal of the member for Denison is to shut down the cattle industry as well. He wants all live exports shut down. That's what he said. That's what he said a few moments ago. I've visited the live cattle ships in Darwin. I've been up there and had a look at the holding yards. I did a speech in this parliament a few years ago about it, despite the fact that, outside of fishing, I don't have farming in my own electorate. People are interested in this topic and they want to hear the truth. They don't want to hear the emotion from the member for Denison and others. They look forward to hearing the truth, and we'll hear that from the minister, the member for Maranoa, shortly. I look forward to listening to him. The fact is that the Australian government has acted. It has been acting. We are one of the only countries in the world that sets high standards when it comes to exporting animals. We have the ASEL transport system and then ESCAS at the other end, where our customers take possession of the sheep or the cattle. Certain standards have to be maintained once that product is sold. No other country does that. We have Independents, like the member for Denison, saying, 'Well, get out of it altogether.' The demand will still be there for animals if we get out of it altogether. What will that mean? It will mean that the industry overall will go down further. So you will see a decline in the welfare of animals if Australia exits the market. That's what you will see. Are the member for Denison and others saying, 'We're only concerned about Australian animals,' or is he concerned about other animals overseas? I love animals. I have a pet Doberman and guinea pigs. I have even got a reptile licence. I've got a pet turtle as well. I love animals and I like to see them treated well. If you are concerned about animals, like I am, then Australia being in this industry with our high standards is important. It's very important. We want to be really careful in this space. When we were debating the Modern Slavery Bill the other day, which I supported—and I'm sure the Independents on the cross bench supported it—I heard the story of a fisherman who had been enslaved on a fishing boat in our region, in Asia. Do you know how long he had been enslaved on a fishing boat? Seventeen years. Those opposite are quick to want to shut down the Australian commercial fishing industry as well, but I say that we want to be careful because when you exit an industry, it goes to other countries that don't have the same high standards that we have. Our Australian commercial fishing men and women have standards, get paid award wages and are not enslaved on fishing boats for 17 years. If we get out of this live animal export industry, we will see other countries take it up and the high standards fall. So we want to be really careful. I've said to the people in my electorate and to the minister that I intend to go and look at live sheep exports from Western Australia to see how the ships are operating, how the sheep are being handled and what is in place, because I very much care about animal welfare. All 25 million Australians need to know that the Australian government has acted. We have high standards. The fact is that a lot is being done. If we get out of this area, not only will the market share be taken up by other countries that don't have the high standards that we have but we will also see an impact on a few thousand farmers. The member for Denison quickly flicked that away and said: 'Don't worry about them. There are a few thousand farmers and a few exporters. Stuff them. Don't worry about that'—I withdraw that; the language wasn't appropriate. That's what the member for Denison said—'Forget about their jobs. They're not important.' Every Australian job is important, Member for Denison. Our government wants to see jobs continue to grow. As the member for Kennedy said a few minutes ago, we can't compete in the chilled boxed market. Our abattoirs are much more expensive—and rightly so—because we have high award wages. So we'd be exiting that market and we'd lose market share at a time when our farmers are already struggling under drought conditions. What is much more important is that Australia remains in this industry and that the high standard the minister for agriculture has put in place is policed. That would be the way to go. 10:17 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter There is a reason we are having this debate today—the member for New England, who was sitting just over there and is about to return to his seat. The sad part is that, when the member for New England took a wrecking ball to this sector by giving it a free leave pass—encouraging it to not only ignore the rules but show contempt for the rules—he did so with the full support and authority of Prime Minister Abbott and later Prime Minister Turnbull. If they hadn't allowed the member for New England to give a free leave pass to the exporters, we might not be having this debate today. That is the truth of it. We have a new minister, and I give credit to him. When the Awassi Express incident was exposed on the ABC, he acted. He might not have acted to the extent we would have liked, but he acted. The irony is that I suspect that he hasn't acted to the extent we would like and to the extent which the majority of the Australian community would like because the current Prime Minister won't allow it. They have a brake on the minister. He expressed his anger at the Awassi incident and associated events. He told us that he was going to increase penalties and he told us that he was going to put new rules in place, but he's not allowed to move at 100 per cent, because he has a big brake on him, and that brake is the Prime Minister of this nation. The House should today be allowed to express its will. The Senate has done so by majority. It's expressed the view that the live sheep export trade should be phased out. It's now asking the House of Representatives to concur with it, and the House of Representatives should be given the opportunity to do so. Ministers on the other side and those on the backbench are speaking on behalf of the government—that is the government position. But I remind those opposite that this is a minority government. The people's house should be allowed to have its say, and it should be allowed to have its say this morning, because there is no doubt in my mind—I'm happy to be proven wrong by a vote—that the majority of members in this House are in support of this motion. I think that has been reinforced by the contribution of the crossbench this morning. The House now has four propositions before it on the live sheep export trade: the Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018, sponsored by the members for Farrer and Corangamite; the Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018 (No. 2), sponsored by the member for Mayo and other members of the crossbench; my own amendments to the Export Legislation Amendment (Live-stock) Bill 2018 to increase penalties for breaches of animal welfare standards; and now this Senate resolution. I will just go through a couple of them. The members for Corangamite and Farrer have made it clear: they oppose the ongoing operation of the live sheep export trade. They made commitments in this place that they would oppose the live sheep export trade in this House. They should be given the opportunity to come good on those commitments, and they should be given that opportunity this morning. When introducing the Export Legislation Amendment (Live-stock) Bill 2018 to increase penalties for animal welfare standards, the minister said it was the centrepiece of their response to the McCarthy review. It was important and urgent. It had to be done straightaway. We couldn't allow the trade to go on without these increased penalties for individuals in breach of animal welfare standards. But here we are, months on, and the bill is still parked, the minister unprepared to bring the bill to the parliament. Why? Because I proposed an amendment to phase out the live sheep trade. I've given a guarantee that, if my amendments fail, we'll allow the bill passage through the House. So there can only be one conclusion: the minister, or more likely his Prime Minister, knows that, if my amendment goes before the House seeking a simple majority, it will pass this House. That's the only conclusion you can come to. So now we have a proposition which tells us: not only do I believe the majority of this House is in support of the orderly phase-out of the live sheep export trade but also the Prime Minister—through his unwillingness to bring that bill back to the House; that urgent bill, as it was—now believes the majority of people in this House believe this motion should pass. Why is this government—this minority government—spitting in the face of the broader Australian community? Why won't it allow them, through us in this place, to express their will on this issue? It's for the Prime Minister to explain; maybe when he gets to his feet the minister will attempt to explain it. I was somewhat amused to hear the member for Petrie making his contribution, and I was sitting there asking myself, 'Well, I wonder what his constituents think about his contribution this morning?' And I wonder what his constituents think about this issue—what is the majority view in his electorate? And I ask the same thing of the member for La Trobe, the member for Brisbane, the member for Forde and, indeed, the member for Sturt. I've no doubt that they know that the majority of people in their electorates believe this motion should not only be considered by the parliament this morning but should be voted upon by the parliament this morning. The Awassi incident occurred in August 2017 and was exposed in a 60 Minutes report in April 2018—six months ago. Yet we are still waiting. The member for Kennedy says we should wait. Well, I think the Australian community has waited long enough. The member for New England completely misses the point—quite deliberately, of course. He's no fool, the member for New England; he's a smart guy. This is not what he really believes. He's blaming the whistleblower: it's all the whistleblower's fault! We need another inquiry. We've had the Moss review and the McCarthy review, the ASEL review is still going, and now we need an inquiry into the whistleblower! What a ridiculous proposition. He's missed the key point. The science is very clear. Yesterday the Australian Livestock Exporters' Council, no less, concurred. They imposed upon themselves a moratorium on the northern summer trade. Mr Rick Wilson interjecting— Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 I appreciate the intervention from the member for O'Connor—for three months. And why? Because they accept that the standards aren't good enough. They accept that the science is true and that at this point animal welfare standards and the summer live trade are incompatible. They're hoping that within three months—by some miracle, I must say—they might be able to find something that fixes that. I doubt they will. But I give full credit to ALEC for acknowledging that the science says that, with current technology, animal welfare standards and the live sheep trade in the northern summer are incompatible; it just can't be done. That's the live exporters council. And the member for New England stands up and says: 'There's nothing to see. It's only the whistleblower. It was a plant by someone with an economic interest who's now living in the Philippines'—or something like that, he told us— Mr Joyce E5D Pakistan. Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Pakistan—living the life of Reilly, I'm sure! Well, some people are living on a different planet. The next thing you know, the member for New England will be denying the moon landing—seriously! The science is clear. The majority of the House recognises it. The Senate recognises it. The Australian Livestock Exporters' Council recognise it. The only Neanderthals left are the member for New England and those who are supporting him on this motion— Mr Rick Wilson 198084 And me! Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Well, I'm happy to nominate the member for O'Connor as a Neanderthal as well, in response to his interjection. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I would ask the member for Hunter to withdraw that remark. Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. The majority is clear that the House should be able to express its will. (Time expired) 10:27 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to point out that this issue—to legislate to phase out long-haul live sheep exports—isn't urgent and shouldn't be debated today. But the substantive issue behind it—of whether a live sheep export trade should continue—is a surrogate for trying to shut down all live exports. The other reason they're trying to bring it on as a matter of urgency is that they realise that by the reform of the governance and the procedures in the live export trade, enforced by the minister after the McCarthy review and the Moss review, they are losing the argument. No-one supported what was shown on TV—not even the industry itself. People who are producing sheep around the country were distressed to see those images. So we're not making excuses for that. But Australia does have a very rigorous set of regulations in place now, and the standards have improved. People depend on this trade. Some of the arguments that have been put up have been quite fallacious—that we should export just processed, chilled mutton and lamb to the world. But there is a market, particularly in the Middle East and in Indonesia, and in other countries around the world, where the people who import chilled meats also want the live product. There is a demand for that, and we would be blowing up our export market for chilled processed lamb and mutton if we didn't supply those same people who demand live sheep. That means places like Indonesia, as well as Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and many other places in the Middle East that rely on Australian lamb and mutton. It wouldn't happen. And what has happened during the period in which we haven't been exporting, while the processes and standards have been corrected and improved? They have been buying from elsewhere. So it's not going to get rid of the trade. As the member for Petrie pointed out, we have the best standards in the world. No other exporter of live animals enforces an ESCAS procedure on the receiving end, but Australia does. We have improved the standards and the governance. That was the issue. The trade itself is a defensible thing. How can we say that what people want in Indonesia and the Middle East, which can't produce animals for protein and for their nutrition, is not allowed? We also have a duty to our producers. We saw what happened with the live cattle trade. Summarily blocking the live cattle trade meant cattle prices across the whole nation plummeted, including for people in my electorate who produce cattle. I even saw it in my small enterprise producing cattle for export. The prices plummeted because all the product that was going out in live trade all of a sudden washed into the onshore trade, and that depressed prices. Those people have debts and need an income. Would the member for Denison be advocating this if half the people who worked in his electorate all of a sudden couldn't pay their mortgages because regulatory change here in Canberra meant their businesses collapsed? No. They'd be marching in the streets. But that will be the effect. We need to respect the right of primary producers to produce good product and export it to markets around the world, and there is a portion of that that demands live export. We have put the governance and standards in place. What was shown on the ABC wasn't defensible or acceptable, but things have changed. As the minister, the member for Maranoa, has pointed out, we have accepted all of the recommendations and we are enforcing them. Just yesterday the Livestock Exporters' Council put on a voluntary moratorium during the hot months. The demand can cope without supply for the three months. After that, the standards we have set will mean that there won't be animal cruelty. A self-imposed limit of one per cent mortality on the export trade is seen as a reasonable standard. I'm informed that the last shipment—which just recommenced—had a 0.24 per cent mortality. I put it to many of the members here that some of the sheep walking around the paddock wouldn't have that mortality rate. Over hot summer periods, with water issues and feed in the drought, out in the paddock you would have a greater mortality than that, particularly given that on a boat they would be supervised by a vet and fed and watered. As we all understand, this is a surrogate for a broader shutdown of the live animal trade. We all support good standards. This will empower members in this parliament who want to shut down the boat trade. They'll see this as a win. This is not urgent, because the changes in the governance and the processes in the live export trade have been improved as a result of the two inquiries—the governance, the supervision, the monitoring, the vets on board, making sure they are well nourished, and lowering the stocking densities so you don't have the heat stress and humidity stress problem. The self-imposed moratorium over the hot, humid periods addresses that even further. So I don't support this amendment. It is not urgent. We need to look after Australian producers, whose livelihoods, families and businesses all depend on it, whether they are just around Canberra, in Yass, or out at Hay, or over in South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania or Queensland. It is all part of the one trade. If we do what the members who propose this amendment motion are asking for, we will collapse the market and we will collapse the livelihoods of many families in Australia, not just in WA but around the nation. 10:34 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne We have two days left this year of this power sharing parliament, and in those two days we should use it to debate the issues that matter to the Australian people and not things like what the government has on the agenda for the rest of the day: putting up fees for universities and making costs to students even higher. We should be debating an issue that this government has tried to skirt for too long, which is the cruelty of live exports. The Australian people are saying loudly that they want these ships of shame stopped. We've got an opportunity now in this short window, which is why we should be debating it immediately, to have the strongest expression from both houses of this parliament—from the Senate and now from the House—before parliament rises for the end of the year, to say, 'This cruel trade must stop.' It's no surprise that the government comes in here and says: 'No, we can find another time to debate it. Let's kick it off into the long grass.' They are running and hiding, just like they tried to run and hide earlier this sitting from the will of the parliament being expressed to say, 'We want a federal anticorruption commission'. Now they are trying to run and hide from the will of the parliament being expressed to say, 'It is time to move out of live exports of sheep.' I am someone who has brought bills to this place over many, many years to say, 'Australia needs to get out of the live export trade full stop.' These ship loads of cruelty must be brought to an end. The member for Petrie was saying he went on a holiday in Western Australia. He was there for a little period of time and that made him have his view. I grew up, over 20 years ago, living in Fremantle and you could tell when these ships of death were in town because the stench ran across the whole city when it was one of those hot days, as it often gets in Western Australia. When it was one of those hot days in the 30s or 40s and you had the ships full of sheep parked there waiting to depart, animals were dying before they even left port. What we also know is that, as they travelled across the other side of the world, more and more of them would die because they were in conditions that were being hidden from the people, and now those conditions have been exposed. They have been exposed and successive governments have told us: 'It is okay. We can fix it. We have this standard or we have that standard, or we'll have this review or we'll have that review.' But, time and time again, what has been made apparent is that you cannot regulate what happens on a ship thousands of kilometres from Australia from behind a desk in Canberra. You just can't do it. The government has asked us to take on face value: 'It's okay, we have put in new rules. We have put in new rules to fix it and they are science based.' Let's have a debate that is based on facts rather than based on emotions. What is clear from the facts, what the Veterinary Association tells us, is that sheep need at least double the areas that they have been given so far, and they need to not be sent through during these hot summer months in the Northern Hemisphere, to have any chance of survival. And what does the government do? Well, the government hears that advice and comes back with rules so weak that they don't meet that standard to the point where a couple of days ago the industry body said, 'We're going to impose a voluntary moratorium.' The government comes in here and talks about taking a big stick to other industries. The stick that it has taken to this industry is so weak that even the industry itself is now standing up saying, 'We will do something stronger than what the government is proposing.' When the industry itself says, 'The government rules are so weak that we are going to do more,' that tells you everything you need to know about this government and whose pockets it is in. It is so intent on propping up a dying industry—an industry that is based on death and that is also itself dying—that it is prepared to undercut what the industry itself is saying that it will do on a voluntary basis. That is why we need stronger standards and the beginning of the end of this industry. There is talk about jobs; jobs have been raised. This government has sold out sheep farmers by giving them false hope and allowing an industry that's based on exploitation and cruelty to continue. I have met with some of those sheep farmers. They have said to me, 'We didn't know that this was happening and the government told us that it was all fixed.' That's what those sheep farmers have said. What is crystal clear is that this government has no intention of fixing it. The government will continue to turn a blind eye. This government can no longer be trusted. When the government comes back and says, 'Here are some new standards,' and those standards didn't even last a couple of months before the industry says that they are even weaker than the ones that it is prepared to impose voluntarily for a short period of time—the industry knows that this is on its way out—then the government has been found wanting. What we could do, if we had the wit in this country, is put in place a transition package so that those farmers and the small number of people who rely on this trade have the capacity to transition out. If we also, together with that, put in place a package to increase and support processing here, we are going to create new markets for our meat. When you have the Greens and the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union together on the same page, saying, 'We need a plan to transition out of this industry and instead put in place a job-rich future where we are processing our meat here and then sending it offshore,' it tells you everything you need to know about where the Australian public are at and where public sentiment is at. This government is being forced, being dragged kicking and screaming, to where the Australian public are at on so many issues, such as on an independent commission against corruption, on not bankrolling coal-fired power stations and instead backing renewable energy, and on this as well. One of the most prevalent things my office is contacted about is the cruelty that the Australian government is currently allowing to be perpetrated against animals that are being exported, such as sheep and cattle. It is one of those issues that really matter to people. They think, 'If a government is prepared to allow this to happen to animals that don't have a voice, what are they prepared to do with everyone else?' They know that a litmus test of what we are as a society and how civilised we are as a society is how we treat the voiceless. The animals are reliant on our protection. They can't speak for themselves. We have to put in place standards that make sure they are protected. It's no good to come in here and say, 'I have pets; I have a dog; I have a turtle,' or, as one government member said, 'Trust me; we like animals.' I bet you wouldn't put your dog on a ship and send it on a voyage for several months without any control over how it was going to be treated. I bet you wouldn't put your dog on a ship together with thousands of others, where they cannot move, where when they get hot they cannot breathe and where they don't have space to lie down. You wouldn't do that to your own pet, so we shouldn't be doing it to other animals as well. If you want to run that spurious argument, take it to its logical conclusion. It is up to this place to set the standards for how we are going to treat the animals that we are responsible for. If the government is right when it comes in here and says that no-one wants to see cruelty to animals, the only logical conclusion is to phase out this trade that is based on cruelty. It is clear now that this cannot be regulated from behind a desk in Canberra. It is clear now that this is a trade that is based on misery. It is clear now that this government is continuing to hold out false hope to the farmers if it continues to say, 'We can prop this up forever.' This trade no longer has a social licence. I urge this House to debate this motion immediately, to pass it and to begin to end this trade. 10:45 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to speak strongly in support of the live export trade, which underpins a massive number of businesses in my electorate of O'Connor. The electorate of O'Connor provides around 60 per cent of the 1.5 million sheep that are exported out of Western Australia, worth about $150 million per annum. As I say, the trade underpins a whole range of businesses: truck drivers, feedlot workers, pellet mill operators. These are labouring-level jobs that good, hardworking people in my electorate rely on for their living. I say to the member for Melbourne, who claims to speak behalf of sheep growers, and I say to the member for Wentworth, the member for Mayo and the member for Denison, who just walked out of this place: come to the Katanning sheep sale in my home town next Wednesday—the minister was there a couple of weeks ago—and speak to the several hundred farmers, the truck drivers, the stock agents and the associated industries that rely on that trade and you will hear a different story to what we just heard from the member from Melbourne. They know that the live export trade unpins the market. It underpins the whole sheep market in Western Australia. We know there is at least a $30 premium for live export sheep over what the domestic market will pay. But what you probably don't know is that, of the 3.8 million sheep turned off in Western Australia, 1.5 million go overseas. If you dump that extra 1.5 million into the current processing trade, you will crash the market. We saw that in 2011, when the previous Labor government pulled the plug on the live export trade completely and caused chaos, just absolute disaster, for the agricultural industries across Australia. And we're seeing it unfold again. They talk about sheep—that's just a Trojan Horse, isn't it, Member for Melbourne? Are you saying that you support the live cattle trade? Are you saying that as well? Mr Bandt M3C Didn't you listen to my speech? Mr RICK WILSON 198084 So this is the first step in closing down the live export trade. I've only recently heard of this allegation that a whistleblower was paid US$200,000. I've only just heard that it came from an animal rights group. I'm not a lawyer—I think there are far too many lawyers in this place—but I would think that, in a court of law, that would rule that evidence out. Think about somebody who is being paid a pretty low wage, admittedly, on these boats and is offered US$200,000 to get some footage of some animals suffering. Does that not give that person a motivation? Mr Bandt M3C Did you think they photoshopped it? Mr RICK WILSON 198084 Maybe they did. Maybe on seven decks of sheep, 60,000 sheep, there were a few pens: 'We won't clean them out; we won't look after them because there's $200,000 at stake. I can retire to Pakistan on $200,000.' But let's for the moment accept that the Awassi Express voyage last August was unacceptable. I think that's been widely agreed in this place. The footage that we saw that was gathered by the whistleblower getting his $200,000 to retire in Pakistan was completely unacceptable. But the government has reacted very strongly. I've got to say the minister and I haven't always agreed. I've thought that the minister has gone too hard. He went too hard on the industry. We saw six months where there were no boats leaving Australia, because the reduction in stocking rates has made those voyages unviable. That's why we didn't see boats leaving for six months, Member for Melbourne. So the government did react very strongly. I will concede to the minister that some very strict new standards were applied to the industry, and, as the boats are going again, we are now seeing the results of that. The Al Shuwaikh recently arrived and unloaded in the gulf with a mortality rate of 0.24. That's a little over 100 sheep out of 60,000. I've been a farmer for all of my life, someone who grew with up that offensive smell of sheep manure in their nostrils. I know the member for Fremantle will probably raise how offensive that is to the people on the latte strip in his electorate as those trucks go by. I grew up with that smell in my nostrils, and it's not that bad, believe me—once you get used to it, it's not that bad. Let me tell you that the people of O'Connor, who also grew up with the smell of sheep manure in their nose, are prepared to fight for this industry. In July, at very short notice, we had 1,000 people turn up to a meeting at Katanning. I was very proud to stand alongside the member for New England, who travelled over to support the industry in my state, to support those hardworking rural and regional agricultural people in my state. The member for Hunter asked why the member for Petrie would stand up to support those hardworking working-class people in my electorate. It is because he is a decent fellow who actually supports working-class people. I say to the member for Hunter: I'll support the coal workers in your electorate. You won't, but I will, because I support working-class people too. The divide in this country is no longer between the working class and capital; it is between the inner city elites and those people who live and work in electorates like my electorate of O'Connor, who produce the billions of dollars of wealth in this country that allow the social programs we all enjoy—in your electorate, member for Fremantle, and in your electorate, member for Melbourne. They are paid for by the people who work their backsides off and sweat every day in my electorate. The $250 million live sheep trade and the $1.6 billion live cattle trade pay for a lot of the bills that come out of your electorate. What about the $9 billion of mineral exports that come out of my electorate? They pay the bills for the people in Fremantle. Mr Josh Wilson 265970 What a load of rubbish! Mr RICK WILSON 198084 They do—who else pays for it? There is $50 billion that comes out of the member for Durack's electorate in iron ore exports while they don't pay any bills. Ms Madeleine King 102376 Where do the workers live? Mr RICK WILSON 198084 That's right. If I had my way, they'd all be living in my electorate and the member for Durack's electorate—and we'll do something about that. Come to the Katanning sheep sale next week, or any Wednesday you'd like to name, and I'll meet you there. When you come to my electorate you'll meet truckies like little Benny Poett, who is a great mate of mine. His family have been carting stock for my family for three generations. When he stood up at that meeting in July, he said 'I'm working one week out of four weeks in a month now, and I'm struggling to meet the payments on my truck.' He's one of those 'evil small business people' who work 60, 70 or sometimes 80 hours a week. There is no sympathy on that side of the House for Benny Poett, but there is a lot of sympathy from me because I know him, I know his family and I know his kids. I want to make sure he's got a future and a living. Chloe McDougall is a young farmer's wife who is actively involved in their business, just like all the farm wives I know in my electorate and my region. With her young son on her hip, she says: 'What's the future for my son?' When I look at the people across the chamber here, they've got no sympathy whatsoever for Chloe McDougall and her family; they could not care less about those people. Let me tell you about one of the most profound contributions that I've seen at the myriad public meetings I've held in my electorate. At one or two days notice, 160 people turned up in Brookton and 120 in Boyup Brook. A young lady stood up. She had a baby with her. She is married to a local farmer. She told her story, which I thought was very profound. She said she was currently a vegetarian. She had been a radical vegan. She had been a Green all her life. Three years ago, she married a farmer. She had always been opposed to the live export trade, because that's what Greens do. That's because Greens don't understand the industry, they don't know what it is about, and it's an easy target for signalling your virtue: 'I oppose the live export trade.' This young lady, Amy Dyer—and she has been on ABC Radio, so anyone who wants to check this is welcome to go and look it up—said: 'When I married a farmer and I started to understand how the industry work, I changed my mind.' She said that what really changed her mind and flipped her from being a strong opponent of the live export trade to being a strong supporter was that Australia imposes the ESCAS on the rest of the world. Our standards, enforced under the ESCAS, have lifted the standards for the live sheep trade across the world. But it is not only the sheep that are shipped in boats; the domestic processing industries in the countries that we deliver to have massively lifted their standards. If Australia vacates that space, there is nobody who is going to set a standard for the rest of the world. Let me tell you: there are 10 million sheep that are going to be traded whether Australia is in the game are not, and that will be no-one— (Time expired) 10:55 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I support this motion. It is long past time that we saw change in this space and long past time that we saw the end of the long-haul live sheep export industry. What I'm not going to do, in speaking in support of this motion, is continue what we have seen too much of in this place, which is a kind of rush to push out false divisions, false conflict and false dichotomies, a rush to caricature one another. For the member for O'Connor to suggest that somehow the people in Fremantle and the people in Denmark and Albany are living on different planets; to suggest that he cares for small-business owners and farmers and truck drivers and that I don't, that I don't know people who do that work, that I'm not connected to those communities, that I don't care about Western Australians; or to suggest that it is only people in communities like Fremantle and inner-city areas, and not people in his community, who care about animal welfare—that's the problem with this place. The problem with this place is that we are playing games when everyone here knows that there is majority support for the change that needs to be made. This industry is coming to an end. It is a doomed industry, it's a deeply flawed industry and it is coming to an end. The responsible thing to do for farmers and truck drivers and people on the land is to manage that transition and support those people. Mr Rick Wilson 198084 And throw them out of business. Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 I will always speak up for those people. It's ridiculous to come in here and shout at each other across the benches as if somehow people who live in Fremantle have no sympathy for or no understanding of the circumstances of people who live on the land. It is utterly ridiculous. There are people who live in Fremantle who spent most of their lives growing up in your part of the world, Member for O'Connor— Mr Rick Wilson 198084 Yeah, they're the ones emailing me. Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 and there are people who live in Albany and Denmark who spent part of their lives growing up in my part of the world. They are Australians and they care about their families and they care about animal welfare, so the idea that somehow, 'You are from Venus and we are from Mars,' is complete rubbish. Mr Rick Wilson 198084 It's true: inner-city elites, mate. Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 What we do know is that this industry is rotten to the core. The long-haul live export of sheep to the Middle East in terrible, rusty old second-rate vessels at the hottest time of the year is a recipe for animal cruelty and animal suffering. It doesn't matter whether the sheep die or not. We've had veterinarians, since this whole review process began, come out and say quite clearly that, whether they die or not, it doesn't mean that they haven't suffered terrible pain on that journey. Mr Rick Wilson 198084 They suffer on a farm on a 40-degree day. Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 We know that this industry is on its knees, and the people who are involved in it need our help to support the transition that is already underway— The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Member for O'Connor, I have asked you twice not to interject. You can leave under 94(a). I've continually asked you not to and you have kept going and going. Well done! You're the first person I have ever had to do that to. The member for O'Connor then left the chamber. Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 The reality is that the long-haul export of live sheep is inherently cruel and it is long past time for it to come to an end. We have had countless evidence of the atrocities that are inherent in this trade. They occur time and time again. There is literally a parade of atrocities, and we come to know of them only because of the work of animal welfare activists and people in that space. We haven't learned of them because of the regulatory framework, we haven't learned of them because of the actions of government; we have learned of them because of animal welfare experts who, for a long time, in my community particularly and elsewhere, have belled the cat on this industry and have said that this cannot go on. The government has to acknowledge that it has been complicit in the failures of this industry, has enabled the failures of this industry and has been an apologist for those failures. It both has put its head in the sand about the fact that animals have been subject to torture, time and time again, as a matter of customary industry practice and has actively removed the kinds of mechanisms that militate against that treatment, that cruelty to animals. So it is utterly false for anyone on that side of the House to claim that we have the best system in the world and that the system works well and that there's nothing to see here, and the minister himself has acknowledged that multiple times this year. He is a member of a government that, both in this term of parliament and in the previous term of parliament, actively removed— An honourable member interjecting— Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 No, he wasn't in this last term of parliament, but he's a member of the government that has been in control through both of those terms of parliament and that has actively removed protections when it comes to animal welfare, and his government has been complicit in those failures. It is time for us to make the change. The industry itself has only just voluntarily decided that there will be no summer trade next year. This is the same industry, this is the same exporters' council, which said that that kind of moratorium wasn't possible, that that moratorium would mean the industry would fall over. Well, we've seen that this summer the trade didn't occur, and we're now told that the trade won't occur next summer. So the claim that the trade depends on these summer shipments has been done away with, and we know from that that further transition is possible if this parliament is prepared to take responsible action. That is what this motion is about. It's about giving us the opportunity to do what people send us here to do, which is to consider issues carefully on the evidence and make decisions that lead change and deliver the kinds of reform that people around this country know about. That's the disconnect that we've seen on this issue, on energy, on climate change and on so many things. The broader community know that there's a problem. The broader community know that there's a solution. They can't understand why people in this place can't get on and make it happen. That is really what Labor has been calling for since the beginning of this year and what this bill and the motion to bring this bill on call for and what Independent members of this place are calling for: a sensible transition—an end to the summer trade and, over a period of time, an end to the long-haul live export of sheep altogether. As part of that, of course, there would be assistance to those who are involved in the farming of sheep. As a Western Australian, I say that we have made it through this summer and the recent cessation of live export of sheep. Farmers in Western Australia and their representatives and the live export council are now preparing for the fact that it will not occur next year. I talk to Tony York. He comes and sits with me. I caught up with him not that long ago, and I was very glad to hear that the farmers in Western Australia have got through this season comparatively well. There are a very small number of farmers who have made business decisions to be heavily involved in live export, and they, of course, are feeling some effect. The vast majority of farmers—wheat-sheep farmers and sheep farmers—in Western Australia have very small exposure to the live export trade, and they've been able to deal with this change. But, at the end of the day, what are the things we have to hold on to? We have to hold on to the fact that the long-haul live export of sheep is inherently cruel. We have to hold on to the fact that there is not a sliding scale that makes animal cruelty acceptable as some kind of price. All economic arguments aside, there is not a sliding scale that makes the torture of animals acceptable as some kind of price, and that's why the long-haul live export of sheep to the hottest part of the world at the hottest time of the year has to come to an end. People in my community have known that for a long time. They don't care about the smell. They don't care about seeing trucks. They're glad that there are people driving trucks and earning money driving trucks. They're glad that there are farmers who produce sheep and help put food on our tables and help explore export markets. They're glad that the export markets in chilled carcasses and frozen meat are expanding. They're glad that Bahrain, when they decided they weren't taking live exports anymore, got 70 per cent of all their sheepmeat from Australia. They know that that's the future. They know that New Zealand, a country where the agricultural economy is much more significant than it is in Australia, has got out of live sheep altogether. They know that nowhere other than in Western Australia and South Australia does live sheep export happen anyway. I've heard from farmers across the nation and from people in Victoria and New South Wales who've contacted me to say, 'Mate, I would never put one of my animals, a sheep, on a vessel like that.' This industry is cruel. It's dominated by a few big business operators who've got into export and make money off it. It can change. It should change. It needs to change. We can make that change. It's what the community wants. They can't understand why we can't do it. This is an opportunity now to do something half sensible before we pack up for the year, before the government puts us into mothballs for the better part of six months. This is an opportunity to do something sensible that the community wants and that we can deliver. 11:05 Dr PHELPS 008Z0 Wentworth We have been asked to debate on the urgency of a motion to phase out the live sheep trade. There are a number of principles involved here. First of all, we are in a minority government and it's important that the voice of the people is heard. Certainly, the message that came through loud and clear during the Wentworth by-election was that the people wanted their voice to be heard. The Senate has asked us to consider this motion. This message has come from the Senate, and we are being asked now whether we should respect that request from the Senate. I believe it's something that we should respect. The other thing that the people of Wentworth said during the by-election campaign was that they care deeply about animal welfare. Indeed, over 70 per cent of people in Wentworth said that they wanted to see a phasing-out of the live sheep trade. They want this cruel and inhumane trade phased out. We have heard today criticisms about the whistleblower who alerted us to the shocking imagery of the treatment of these animals on board these ships. We should be congratulating this whistleblower, not criticising this whistleblower, for exposing the conditions for these animals. The other question about immediacy is: how much longer can we tolerate these animals suffering in these appalling conditions? The industry itself has accepted that the trade is incompatible with animal welfare. It has itself imposed a three-month ban over the hottest months. This is an admission by the industry that the animals cannot be protected. But the reality is that the hot months are not just three months of the year. There are six hot months of the year in the part of the world which is the destination for these animals. The government should be working on a transition plan, not on a plan to continue to protect this industry. They should be conducting a transitional plan in order to protect the primary producers who depend on this trade so that the government is ahead of the game and so that the primary producers can be ahead of the game, because the reality is that this is an unsustainable industry. The reality is that this industry has had an opportunity to reform itself and it is, in my view, beyond redemption. And the reality is that Australians want this trade phased out. I support the motion to immediately debate this motion. 11:07 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I'm particularly concerned to follow the member for Fremantle, who was one of the previous speakers, and hear a Western Australian representative happy to shut down a $250 million industry in Western Australia—that's what it's worth directly. It's just appalling that any representative from Western Australia would choose to rip this sort of money out of our state. There is a very personal face to this issue that's often ignored, and that's the face of the farmers and the small regional communities. I've lived through something which was another very tough experience, and that was the deregulation of the dairy industry. It had a significant impact on very small towns and communities right throughout the South West at the time. Overnight, we lost over $30 million out of my Harvey shire alone. Can you imagine what losing $250 million would mean to those small communities in the electorates of the member for O'Connor and the member for Durack, most particularly? These ideas of transition just don't bear thinking about. I was talking to a sheep producer on the plane. He had decided that he would take, as he put it, the '$50-a-head hit' and send his sheep to the abattoir instead of sending them on a live export ship, because of timing. He arranged it with an abattoir, but when he got back in touch with them, when the sheep were due to be accepted, they didn't have the capacity to process them. So what on earth was he meant to do with those animals? Of course, a wether is an entirely different animal from a lamb or from the sheep that you would export. They are entirely different beasts. What is it going to do to the flocks of sheep in Western Australia? We know what's going to happen and we're already starting to see some of the impacts. As one of the few farmers in this place I am particularly frustrated and hurt to hear the comments made about cruelty. We as farmers are so passionate about our animals. We love our animals and what they produce. As a dairy farmer I rely on my beautiful cows to do what they do. I know that our sheep farmers are the same. We actually understand animals better than most and we have to deal with the harsh realities of what life is like on a farm. Equally, we're the people who keep the small communities operating. There is talk of transition. It all sounds very easy. If we were ever to have a Labor government and they shut down the trade as they plan to, the impact would be immediate. There wouldn't be the nice, simple transition that's being talked about. You would see what happened in the market flow straight back to the farmer and, equally, flow directly back to all the small businesses that support the industry. I'm talking about everyone—those who cart the animals, the mechanics who service those vehicles and everyone who is part of that small community. Even the local fuel supplier is part of the supply chain. The impact would flow to the farmers and small businesses in those communities. If you have never lived in a small community—and many opposite have not—then you wouldn't understand how it works. We need the income from all of those small businesses just to keep our communities operating. We need those people buying their inputs from other local small retailers to keep them operating as well. They're the same people who support our local community service organisations, our local sporting organisations and our emergency services. They are often one and the same people. Farmers contribute at that level. The small businesses, the fuel suppliers, the mechanics, the people in transport and the people in earthmoving are all part of the supply chain and contribute to small communities. It's very easy for those who live in city electorates to dictate to those of us who live and work in small regional communities and say: 'We're going to shut down your industry. We're going to shut you down.' There is no care, no responsibility and no real interest in the hardship that that no doubt will create. The small communities are going to continue to fade away in the electorates of O'Connor and Durack, but there's no concern from those opposite for the people. How about you walk a mile in the shoes of those of us who live and work in rural and regional Australia? For a change, how about you walk a mile in our shoes and live in the real world? On my farm there are times when we have to put down animals for different reasons. We hate that, but it is a necessity at times. It's a place that you don't understand or know. You don't care about what we as farmers deal with on a daily basis. Even worse, you have no respect for what we do and what we contribute not only to our families but to the rural and regional sector and exports. What happened during the global financial crisis when Labor, who are on the other side, made some dreadful decisions? What industry underpinned our economy during that time and kept exports up? Agriculture. Yet they turned around and shut down live cattle exports. Now you're looking at shutting down sheep and cattle exports. It's a double whammy this time—not just one; both. There is no care at all for those of us who live and work in rural and regional Australia. There's not one skerrick of thought. When you go to the countries where this meat actually arrives, as I did when I spent time there with the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, there is no cold chain. You talk about packaged meat. It will rot, because people don't have electricity; they have to buy their meat fresh from a market. The animal actually has to be slaughtered overnight so that it's fresh to the market itself and they can buy it in the small amounts that they can actually consume on a daily basis. That is actually how it works. We are taking away the options for those people as well. In Australia, the standards we have, as we know, lead the world in this space. There will continue to be live exports, but they won't have the extraordinary conditions and the standards that Australia has to get those cattle to those nations. That market will still exist. It's not going to disappear overnight. Those cattle will come from countries that don't have the standards that we have. In this place, I've repeatedly said that I'm always proud to be a farmer in Australia. There are people on the other side who I know have absolutely no respect for what Australian farmers do and the enormous contribution they make to the small rural and regional communities to keep them viable. Every time you take a dollar out of a rural and regional community, it hurts every one of us. That's because we are interdependent. If we don't do the work, if we don't support our community service organisations and if we aren't the ones helping with emergency services—it is our dollars that help to keep these organisations alive, thriving and able to look after our people—then no-one else does. We rely on each other. That's how rural and regional Australia works. That's how we operate. I am really proud to be an Australian farmer, but those opposite try to make me feel as though I should be ashamed. Well, I am not. I am proud of every Australian farmer. I really am appalled at and ashamed of those opposite, particularly the Western Australians who will stand in this place and say, 'We support cutting $250 million worth of value out of the pockets of not only our farmers and our producers but all the small businesses and those associated communities.' You know that value will not come back to those communities. It doesn't matter what you think you will do; the value will not come back. Suffering and problems will exist in rural and regional Australia as a result. I'm proud every day to be a farmer. 11:17 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I will say at the outset that I am deeply, personally offended at the remarks of the member for Forrest. That she would come into this place and accuse other Western Australians of not caring is a disgrace. The member for Forrest is leaving the chamber—that's wise. It's not fair, it's ridiculous and it's wrong. We have always worked for regional Australia. In my electorate, I have the CBH Group, Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd. That is the largest export industry in the state agriculturally, putting wheat out of Kwinana. We always care for the farmers. We have to have their industry because it supports our towns, our towns that we created. Sure, Rockingham and Kwinana came after Brookton and Corrigin, but they were still a very important part of the development of Western Australia. If we reflect on that footage, we saw how everyone in Australia—quite rightly—was shocked and just disgusted at the cruelty done to sheep that mainly came out of Western Australia and were exported out through Fremantle. On the way to Fremantle, those sheep stop in my electorate. They rest for a time at Baldivis before they are packed tightly onto trucks and sent through the streets of Fremantle to get on these second-rate, overcrowded and underventilated ships that then spend many, many months in the hot summer going up to the Middle East. With that footage we saw, it's important to note that these incidents are not uncommon. That disgrace that we saw and that animal cruelty that we saw did not constitute a breach of the current regulations. What does that mean? It's disgraceful. Where were the member for O'Connor, the member for Durack and the member for Forrest when the former minister for agriculture, the member for New England, was dismantling the regulation that sought to keep this industry alive? There is a culture of complacency that the former minister put in place, and disregard for government regulation—this regulation was needed to keep this industry alive. Where were they? Why weren't they talking to the then minister about what should be done to protect the industry? The industry itself came out a long time ago and said there was a problem. Local WA operators saw the writing on the wall. Wellard in my electorate, who operate in Baldivis, do some of the exporting, and Wellard senior executive Fred Troncone has said: The reputation of our industry rests on how well the industry is regulated. That's the industry itself calling on you as a government to help them. And what did you do? You did nothing. What did the member for Forrest do then? She would have seen that letter. If she's so tight-knit with that industry, why didn't she do something about it? Why wasn't she listening? It is the same with the members for O'Connor and Durack. They have been caught sitting on their hands, doing nothing. It's just ridiculous. It's a disgrace that they would come into this place and have the gall to have a go at every other Western Australian member in this place—because of their own inaction, and their own wilful blindness to the disgrace that became the regulation of the live sheep export trade in this country. To conflate this industry with the cattle export industry is ridiculous. We know they are different export markets. That's the truth. An honourable member interjecting— Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 To say that Labor is doing that is ridiculous and untrue. It is not true. Cattle are different to sheep; the voyage is different; animals sweat differently—it's called science, but we know where you stand on that. The industry themselves, as we know, have now self-imposed a break in this trade because they know they don't have the social licence to operate it during those hot summer months. They warned this government earlier—before 2½ thousand sheep perished on the Emanuel Exports transport ship—that is, people and businesses doing the right thing warned this government that many exporters were doing the wrong thing and causing unending cruelty to Australian sheep going to the Middle East. It is a large industry .There's no doubt about it: no-one wants to see an industry collapse. Of course we don't. How could we? But the industry have called on themselves to take this break, while they have to wait for the government to regulate it properly. I mean, what are you people doing? How many things can you put off to the never-never? Do you want to put this off to next year and let the industry just, you know, run itself? It doesn't want to run itself; it needs leadership from government—and you're out to lunch. You're just waiting for, I don't know, Christmas drinks and a bit of fruitcake. It's obscene; it's not fair on the livestock themselves; and it's certainly not fair on the people that work in the industry. The inaction and negligence of this government is what has led to this export trade coming to an end. The government has no plan. The only plan is to put any debate on this off to the never-never. Well, that's not good enough for agriculturists in this country, and it's not good enough for the agriculture industry in Western Australia. You desert them because of your laziness and your ignorance. Through your own fault, you're dismissing the importance of regulation which the industry itself has called for. I really hope the members for Forrest, Durack and O'Connor have a bit of a think about what they have failed to do over the past five years. If they're now the protectors of agriculture in this country and in Western Australia, they have failed, and failed miserably. I have to back up the member for Fremantle: I've driven the streets of Fremantle where we see those sheep; the sheep go from Baldivis up to Freo. People are appalled—and these sheep haven't even reached the ships yet! These are sheep that are packed tightly into trucks. This is cruelty: they're packed in, their hoofs or their heads are caught, they're in cages, and they're caught in the traffic of a hot Perth summer. It's a disgraceful state of affairs that you are overseeing, and you are not listening to people in your communities. We have people from the agricultural regions of Western Australia also calling for an end to this, not just the industry associations. The farmers themselves know how disgraceful this has become. I genuinely feel a bit sorry for the current minister for agriculture. Agriculture in this country is a magnificent thing. We know this country is built on it; Western Australia certainly is. We know the importance of agricultural science to Western Australia. He's been left with a great big steaming one, because the former minister for agriculture left him with a depleted department and has failed to regulate. When we see those thousands of sheep get thrown into the ocean, under this current regulation that's not a breach? No wonder the Australian people are shocked and appalled. No wonder they're flooding email boxes and our electorate offices with phone calls. It's just no wonder. This government is a disgrace. 11:25 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the question be now put. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 00APG Lock the doors. The question is the question moved by the honourable member for Watson, and that is that the question be put, and that is on the amendment moved by the member for Mayo. Members need to take their seats. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Well, I asked that the doors be locked. Can I actually read the question before the House? Do you want me to proceed with the question, or not? The member for Watson. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, what we're drawing to your attention is that the rule that people cannot move within the chamber once the doors are locked has been defied, and ordinarily there would be an opportunity to take action against a member who does that. The SPEAKER 00APG Well, I just saw the member walking to his seat. I don't have an instant snapshot of where 150 people are sitting. Mr Burke DYW What I put, which I ask you to clarify— The SPEAKER 00APG If members could not interject. I can't hear the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW What I'm putting, which I'm asking for you to clarify with the member himself—I have no doubt that the member for McMillan will provide accurate information in response—is whether, when you said, 'Lock the doors', he was seated; he was not able to then move across the room. I don't know whether that happened or not, but we are not allowed to leave our seats during divisions once we've taken them. The SPEAKER 00APG I understand the point the member for Watson is making. We can spend a lot of time on this, but, if you look at the standing orders, it is after I've appointed the tellers that the member can't move, and I haven't appointed the tellers—I haven't been able to get a word in! So, I'm going to go through it again. The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business, that the question be put, be agreed to, and he's seeking that the question be put on the amendment moved by the member for Mayo.

The House divided. [11:30]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

71 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 Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP (teller) 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) Phelps, KL Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 71 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ 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 Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

The numbers for the ayes and the noes being equal, the Speaker gave his casting vote with the noes.
Question negatived.

11:37 The SPEAKER 00APG I am required to exercise my casting vote according to the principles, which we've done a few times, and one of those principles is that the Speaker should vote to allow further discussion where this is possible. So my vote is with the noes. I know that a member was on their feet seeking the call when the Manager of Opposition Business put the procedural motion. The question is that the amendment be agreed to, and the member for Hinkler has the call. 11:37 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Firstly, I will say that all Australians, when they saw those horrifying images, were simply horrified. That is a statement of fact. But what I put to those members of the House is this: there are an awful lot of horrifying images in Australian agriculture, if you are actually a producer, if you are actually out there producing cattle, producing sheep, producing pork for export markets, for domestic markets. There is a process that our farmers go through that can be very difficult and trying. And I would say to all Australians: where were the Greens—where are the Greens right now? Where have they been for the last decade? Where have the Labor Party been for the past 10 years, when wild dogs have been destroying herds right around Australia? I don't see them out in the back blocks of Winton. I don't see them out there helping to put these animals down after they've walked around for five days with broken legs, half shredded. These are horrifying images that happen every single day, but I don't see any support from those opposite to deal with these feral pests. But they're very happy to pick up an issue that they think will help them politically. There are more feral pigs in this country than there are people. We don't see a thing from the Greens about that—the damage that it's doing to the environment, to all of Australia's animals. It is horrifying. Feral cats are just as bad. But we don't see any noise; we don't see any email activity. We certainly don't see a big social media campaign about helping the animals of Australia or farmers around Australia who are trying to produce their product. They do not want to lose stock in any circumstance: they don't want to lose stock in a drought, they don't want to lose stock through starvation, they don't want to lose stock if they are being transported to another country after they have been sold and they don't want to lose stock because they are sick. They simply know that that is a loss. This idea that Australian farmers are intentionally causing harm to their animals is an absolute mistruth put forth by those opposite. It is not true. We've heard from the member for Forrest, a passionate farmer, one of the few farmers in this place who actually goes out there and does this every single week. I congratulate the member for Forrest for still being in the dairy industry. We all know that it's tough, but this debate should be about facts, and I think we should put a few facts on the table. For those who are squeamish, for those who don't like the images: I didn't like them either and I don't like the fact that it occurred, but, in abattoirs right around the country, if we have a look at the process that happens there, we see that we go in with live animals and we come out with hamburgers. It is a pretty straightforward process: they start at the front, they get knocked, if they are cattle they get their hide stripped, they're gutted, they go down to the offal room, they are split, they are dehooved, they're beheaded, they're cut up and they end up on plates of Australians and people right around the world. We need to have a factual debate. If there are people in this room who think that you can produce animals and stock in this country without any loss whatsoever, they are being misled, because that is not how it works in the real world. In the real world it is an unfortunate fact of production that you lose stock: they get sick, they get attacked by dogs and they get injured. On lots of occasions, particularly when there is drought, there is pure loss and it is horrifying, most of all for the producers who have put everything into those efforts. I think that we should stand on their side. Certainly in this corner of the House we stand with our producers. They are producing the best livestock in the world. Right around the world, people want our product. It is clean, it is green, it is lean, it is what they want and we've been building the agriculture product for Australia for a long time: $61 billion worth of exports with a target of $100 billion. That's not going to happen if those opposite get their way and shut down a $250 million industry. I've looked at a bit of equivalency, because, quite simply, my people are not affected whatsoever. In my electorate I have no sheep producers that I'm aware of, apart from a few hobby producers, but I know that if a $250 million part of the sector in my economy was destroyed, this is what would happen: I would lose the Bundaberg mills of Millaquin and Bingera, the Isis mill at Childers, the Maryborough sugar mill in the neighbouring electorate of Wide Bay and we still wouldn't be there—$250 million and thousands of jobs. What we know about those opposite is that they no longer support working people. They do not support those that get up, put on their steel capped boots, put on their high-vis clothes and their hat, go to work and make a contribution to this country. It is very easy to sit in Melbourne and Sydney and have an idealistic view about anything, because, firstly, it doesn't affect you and, secondly, you can afford it. The people who are doing this put their hard-earned on the table. As someone who has built up a couple of businesses from absolutely nothing I can tell you that it takes (a) a lot of work, (b) a lot of risk and (c) a lot of commitment. You need to have a good arrangement with your bank and good product that you can sell, and it takes time. There is nothing more devastating than losing your industry because of the intervention of something over which you have no control. Right now there is a move from those opposite for that intervention to take away these people's houses and their livelihoods to be by the federal government. We know exactly what will happen here. The banks will foreclose because it's a pretty easy question: can they service the debts that they have if they have nowhere for their stock to go? If the answer is no, they will foreclose on their farms, they will have a huge loss and it will have been forced by those opposite. There are those of us in this place who stand with our producers, who stand with our farmers and who absolutely intentionally want them to be successful in their chosen trade, because they're having a go. They are not looking for government handouts, they are not standing around asking for someone else to pay their way; they are Australian producers and we should be proud of the work they are doing. Can you imagine if this were to move to cattle, another huge, huge export industry for Australia? We are doing something which no other country in the world is doing with the ESCAS system—there is no-one else—which is applying Australia's animal welfare system on another country. Can you imagine if we were to go off to another nation—whether it be Britain, somewhere in Europe or any other exporter—and say, 'Yes, we're happy to take your product, but, by the way, you'll need to ensure that we meet the British standard for whatever that system may well be,' and it were enforced on us, a sovereign nation? Those are the arrangements that we have when we are exporting cattle right around the world. We have in place a system to ensure animal welfare. As I said earlier, if there is an expectation from those in this place that there will be no loss in the production of animals, well, they are mistaken, because it cannot be done. There are losses on Australian farms every single day through misadventure, through disease, through no choice of the producers. They want every single animal on deck because, if they are not, it is a loss for them. This is a pretty simple business. They produce stock, they have a buyer, they get paid and they sell it. We are doing everything we can to ensure animal welfare standards are met at an appropriate level. But you cannot ship anything around this country, whether it's by truck—I notice the contribution earlier, where there were complaints about the fact that sheep were being moved in a truck. Can you believe it—the gall of a producer to put stock in a truck! Can I tell you: they cannot fly. There is no magic means to move stock around this country. This is the way that it's done, and it has been for decades. As I've said over and over and over again, there is no-one in this country that produces livestock that wants loss. They do everything they can to prevent it. I have spoken many times with Senator John 'Wacka' Williams in the other place. John is a practical guy. He tells me that every single year he loses stock. It's not something that he wants to do, but that is what happens. Back to this debate: what an absolute nonsense. This is a $250 million industry, built by the industry, on the backs of their hard work, on top of their risk, on top of what they have done, and the people in this place want to take away their livelihood. Well, that is an absolute disgrace. You should take a good, hard, long look at yourself. We will do everything we can to ensure animal welfare standards. But, if you are sitting on that side of the House and you are saying to the Australian people that you can have this happen and have no stock losses in Australia, what an absolute nonsense that is. Get yourself out to regional Australia and go and talk to the people that do this work, because that can't be done. Once again, I'd call on the Greens: how about you do something for Australian producers and start to work on feral dogs, feral pigs and feral cats, which are destroying livestock around this country. Shame on you for supporting this. Shame on you for not supporting Australian producers and a $250 million industry. 11:48 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The issue of the live export of sheep dates right back to the early 1980s, when this parliament considered it and a Senate committee, chaired by Senator George Georges, came back with a recommendation that made it absolutely clear that the future viability of this industry was under question. Indeed, from my interpretation of their recommendation, the committee said it was an industry that, on moral grounds, should not continue. Yet, some 35 years later, we are still debating whether it should or should not continue. What's interesting is that there's no doubt that the industry reached a peak a few years after that committee report, but since then it has been in continuous decline. Today in this parliament, we are effectively debating the same issues that were being debated in the early 1980s—whether it is reasonable to export sheep, particularly during the hot summer months, on journeys to the Middle East that take two, three or four weeks, because of the losses of those sheep and the cruelty that is inflicted upon them. Those losses are very clearly documented by the department after each journey. If one wants to look at the number of losses, if we go right back to the start of this industry, they must run into millions—millions of sheep that have died in a very cruel and horrific way. We know that even under a coalition government, the Howard government, the industry had to be suspended because of the cruelty imposed on the sheep during those export journeys. I believe it was because of the very heavy losses incurred on a voyage to Egypt that the Howard government suspended the trade. Again, it highlights that it wasn't just this side of the House who had concerns about the safety and the welfare of the sheep that were being exported; it was also members of the coalition parties themselves. I wonder whether any of the members who sit in here today ever allude to or refer to the Howard government's suspension of the trade at that time. That wasn't done by this side of the House; it was done by their very own government in recognition that the trade needed to be better managed. We've seen in more recent times—after this side of the House brought in the ESCAS conditions, which we thought would put an end to the suffering if they were complied with—that it is clear that, even with the ESCAS conditions brought in by this parliament, the trade still imposes horrific cruelty on the animals when they are on these long voyages. We saw that again with respect to the Awassi Express losses of 2017. Those losses caused a huge backlash from the community. There was a very widespread backlash, including from, I believe, the farming community itself. Those losses brought this issue to a head once again. Indeed, the coalition government, as a result, reviewed the industry on several fronts. We had the Moss review, the McCarthy review and a departmental review of its own operations. As a result of all of those reviews, we now have a situation where several things have arisen. Firstly, the government itself brought legislation into the parliament which imposed additional fees on exporters who didn't comply with the ESCAS conditions. That was in response to the death rate. If we need increased penalties, it clearly says that the industry is not living up to the expectations of it. I remind members opposite that this industry has had 35 years or so to get its act in order. Unfortunately, the government has put that legislation in limbo. So, albeit the minister came in and said, 'Look, we will impose heavier penalties on those people who do not comply and who do not provide safe transport conditions,' the reality is that the legislation is in limbo and does not take effect. We also saw, as a result of those inquiries, that the exporter at the time had their licence suspended. Again, this was an exporter who had been exporting sheep to the Middle East for years and years. It was only because of public pressure and pressure from this parliament that those reviews took place, which caused the government to act and the licence of that exporter to be suspended. I understand that there's an appeal against that suspension. Nevertheless, the critical issue that arose from all of those reports, and in particular from the McCarthy review, was that there should not be the export of Australian sheep during the hot summer months. That was a critical finding, because, regardless of the stocking ratios, the temperatures on those ships reach a point where the sheep cannot survive. With respect to that, it doesn't make any difference whether we reduce the stocking ratios or not. It's the hot temperatures that really matter. What was also interesting was that, at the time that the debate on increased penalties and the suspension of the export licence to the exporter took place in the House, this side of the House made it clear that, if the summer trade were halted, that in itself would effectively make the industry unviable. The government, by not adopting Labor's position at the time, was simply leaving farmers stranded, not knowing what the future of their industry would be. Yesterday, we had the Australian Livestock Exporters' Council, the industry body itself, come out with a statement that the summer trade would be stopped—that there would be no summer trade of live sheep as a result of the findings of past inquiries. If the industry itself is prepared to come out and say that it is not appropriate to export sheep in the hot summer months, why are the government and the department not imposing the same standard? It's disappointing to think that the industry is prepared to act when the government isn't. I made the point earlier that this is an industry in decline. Currently, it's worth about $250 million a year in a sheep industry that, across Australia, is worth about $5 billion a year. The difference between today and years gone by is that there are now many other options for sheep farmers to sell their product. There are also other options for Australia with respect to export. Ten, 20 and 30 years after it was first raised, the countries that at the time might not have had refrigeration probably do have it. We've also had government ministers come into this chamber, week in and week out, talking about the new markets that have been opened up by the trade agreements that have been signed by this government with other countries. Surely, if they are true to their word that those trade agreements are going to help the farmers of this country, you would think that there would be enough opportunities to find markets for processed sheep, rather than having to send them as live sheep to destination countries. Surely, if those agreements stack up and are worth what the ministers are saying they are worth, we should be able to support our farmers by processing the sheep here in Australia and then sending them to one of those new markets that the government claims have been opened up. I will finish on this point, because it is one of the rebuttals often used by members opposite: if Australia does not export sheep overseas, some other country will, and therefore we are not stopping the suffering of the sheep. The reality is that New Zealand has stopped sending its live sheep overseas. But, more importantly, it is very unlikely that the other countries that might send live sheep to the Middle East will have to send them on ships that are on the water for two, three or four weeks. They will have much shorter journeys in most cases. Therefore, the argument that we're not in any way acting to stop sheep from suffering is simply not true. The community has spoken out on this issue time and time again. Public opinion has shifted. Public opinion makes it absolutely clear that today, when we do have options to support our farmers—and certainly we should be doing that—we should be using those options, rather than continuing a trade that has been shown, time and time again, to be cruel and unnecessary. 11:57 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee It gives me good pleasure to talk about the Australian red meat industry, because I am a red meat producer. I have a farm of my own, which I bought at 22, and I've been involved in livestock for a very long time. I actually got the deposit for my farm by working in shearing sheds. So it does surprise me that people are willing to make decisions in this place without taking the time to go out and learn and to actually gain a greater understanding. I would argue that better decisions are made in this place when people take the time to do their research before forming an opinion based on a Four Corners program or an email campaign. I extend an opportunity to any member in this place to come to my farm, have a look at the animal welfare standards that the red meat industry has taken part in, and gain an understanding. Come and see that sometimes when you've got livestock, particularly when tough seasonal conditions are around, you also have dead stock, and that, when you transport sheep in trucks, sometimes they do get down and sometimes you do have fatalities. I might point out, when they talk about long-haul sheep exports, that I once purchased sheep from Tasmania, and the losses on that journey, travelling across from Tasmania to Victoria, were four per cent. There would be no-one in this House—particularly on the Labor side, considering they hold all but one of the lower house seats in Tasmania—who would argue that we should shut down our national highway there, across water, to live sheep. If you care about animals then you care about all animals—whether that animal is born in Australia, whether that animal is born in South Africa, whether that animal is born in Argentina or whether that animal is born in New Zealand. If you care about animals, it stands to reason that you should want to lift the animal welfare standards of all animals. I have been very fortunate to have travelled and looked at the live export industry from start to finish, and I can tell you that Australia's involvement in the live export industry actually lifts the standard of animal welfare globally. It doesn't just lift welfare standards for Australian animals; it lifts them globally. The reason for that is that Australia produces very good quality livestock, and that means purchasers want our stock and are prepared to jump whatever hurdles we put in front of them in order to get our stock. When I was in Indonesia I was looking at a live cattle receival site and was looking at what they were doing around Indonesian cattle. They said the Indonesians had adopted the Australian principles for their own cattle because it was lifting their animal welfare standards. I say that those who are passionate about shutting down the industry should be careful what they wish for. If you take Australia out of the live export industry, you will play a key role in diminishing around the world the welfare outcomes of animals used for human consumption. We want to be very careful. You could feel good about yourself and say: 'Yes, we've shut down the Australian industry. Yes, we've put Australians out of work. Yes, we've made truckies go broke. Yes, we've made farmers make less money. We feel good at night because we've shut it down.' But what you've actually done is deliver worse welfare outcomes for animals around the world. You feel good, but you've had a counterproductive outcome. The live sheep export industry is predominantly out of Western Australia. I was over there a number of weeks ago. Whilst I was there I physically went on and inspected a live sheep boat that was going to get loaded. I saw it with my own eyes. I didn't look at it through the eyes of a lobbyist. I didn't look at it through the eyes of someone who didn't know what they were looking at. I looked at it through the eyes of someone who has had 20 years experience in the livestock industry and someone who has eight generations of farmers on both sides of his family. I knew what I was looking at and I could see whether the animal welfare standards were good or bad. I have to say that I was impressed with what I saw. If you create uncertainty in any industry, you stifle investment in that industry and as a result you fail to see better outcomes for that industry. What the Labor opposition have been trying to do creates uncertainty in the live export industry, and that has the perverse outcome of stifling investment. A number of years ago when I was at a feedlot in Indonesia that had 10,000 cattle that had been exported from Australia, the lady in charge of the feedlot said: 'Can you guarantee that, if a Labor government is elected, the live cattle industry won't be shut down? If you can guarantee that, we will spend millions of dollars on new facilities and make sure that they are at an even higher standard than those we have got now.' I couldn't give her that guarantee. I could not give her a guarantee that a future Labor government would not shut down the Australian industry, that a future Labor government would not shut down Australian jobs and that a future Labor government would not shut down the live cattle export industry, particularly to Indonesia. Because of that lack of certainty we are seeing the perverse outcome of there being less incentive to invest. If you want to get the best outcome for live sheep that are exported, you do so by creating certainty so that new boats are built to higher standards than they currently are. That's a very pertinent point. You can put dehumidification on sheep export ships. You can have better airflow. You can have better access to water. You can have better access to feed. If you are carting a valuable product—and sheep are very expensive—you will make it very clear that you will invest in that product. Our government has form of standing by industry to open up industry and opportunity. This is for Australian jobs, and that's what we're all about. That's what we're going to stand by. That's why we believe there continues to be a long future for the live animal export industry in Australia. 12:04 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa Can I firstly acknowledge that I understand the emotiveness of this issue—quite rightly. What we saw in that vision on 60 Minutes several months ago was abhorrent. It was abhorrent to all of us. But it is important that we are calm and decisive through this, and that we predicate our decisions on science and not emotion. That is why the decisions that I have made as the agriculture minister have been predicated on science. Let me just help the member for Hunter, who says in his speech that the science is in. Let me educate him on the process and where we are. One of the reviews that I asked for was the McCarthy review. Within that, Dr McCarthy created a heat-stress model, a new model that needed to be tested—and, in fact, we are only a matter of weeks away from getting that science back. It is groundbreaking, in the sense that we are changing the science from being mortality based to being animal welfare based. That is a key plug in terms of making sure we can reset this industry and do it right, but we haven't got that science. Speaking to this motion around the urgency of bringing this on today: it would be premature. It would be premature for this House to debate such a motion when the science is, in fact, incomplete. It will be very close to being complete for the first draft report, for more consultation—because the veterinary science that is involved in this is very complex. It is important that we allow that process to take place. Couple that with the opportunity to invest in new technology—for example, new technology around dehumidifiers that will reduce the hot bulb temperature, which is the big killer in those voyages that we saw in that footage. The reality is that we have taken a number of steps. Can I address one of the comments that the member for Denison made, about the urgency of this motion because there are boats out there at the moment where there is no regulation. One of the key initiatives that I took, apart from any review, was to put independent observers on sheep boats from the very get-go. Independent government observers have been on those boats since that incident with Awassi. I undertook that initiative of my own volition, not with the review, and we are now getting truth and proof on those boats. In fact, the first reports have been issued, and I have advised the department that they need to be shared publicly—and not only those reports; I have asked the department to share the vision so that there is transparency and we build trust in the industry. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from being transparent. That is the initiative that we've taken, and we're going to continue to do that. So for the member for Denison to say this motion is urgent because there are boats out there at the moment that are unregulated is totally false. It is important that we don't have mistruths and that we don't let emotion run away with us. It is important that we use science and fact. I've been clear and concise around that. I've also been clear and concise around the Moss review and the recommendations that have been put in place there. We've already started an animal welfare branch and, in fact, for the first time, as I said earlier, we're going away from mortality to animal welfare standards. This is reshaping the industry and resetting the industry to make sure that the very best standards—which the OIE already acknowledge to be the best in the world—are improved. We can always do better; make no mistake. We need to have a regulatory framework that calls out the bad behaviour. It's important we do that. It's important we put that framework around this industry. And I'll make sure that the regulator, moving forward, has an oversight through an inspector-general of animal export. That is an important move, to make sure they are reporting not to the department but, in fact, to the minister and the public. Transparency is so important in making sure we move towards that. We need to let the science continue. We made sure from the start with the McCarthy review to ensure that we were not only going to work through the heat-stress model but also going to make sure the allometric model had safety built into it, and to reduce the capacity on those boats so that we could make sure that the animal welfare standards were at their utmost. I say to the member for Kennedy, who talked about the stockmen on board: I can assure the member for Kennedy that, in fact, they do already undertake a training course, an accreditation, to make sure they have the appropriate standard of skills that we would expect them to have to be able to manage livestock on those boats. It's important to articulate that, because it's one of the concerns that the member for Kennedy had—and quite appropriately—in wanting to ensure that the best animal standards were met on any boat, whether it be sheep or cattle. The reality is that this government has been calm and decisive. We believe in this industry. I also point to what the member for Denison said about our moral responsibility. Let me say that our moral responsibility goes beyond this nation. It goes beyond the sheep and cattle within this nation. It goes around the world because, if it's not our sheep and cattle, it will be the sheep and cattle of another nation. So I ask the member for Denison about his moral compass. Does he value the sheep and cattle of this nation above those of any other nation? We have a responsibility to stay and get it right. This government will continue to do it, because the market is not dying, despite those who say it is. I have sat with government officials in Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE. This is an important part of not only our agricultural trade but our total trade into the Middle East. So it's important that we respect our trading partners, treat them with the dignity they deserve and give them the clarity that they deserve. We need to do that with science and technology, not with emotion. That's what I say to this parliament. This motion is premature. You need to allow the Australian government to work with industry and our farming sector to get it right. We're Australians. We do it better than anyone else, and we'll continue to get this right as we move into the future. The SPEAKER 00APG The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Mayo be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:15]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

71 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 Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP (teller) 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) Phelps, KL Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Sharkie, RCC 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 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 Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:19 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:21]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

72 AYES 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 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 Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 71 NOES 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 Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP (teller) 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 Phelps, KL Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

BILLS 12596 BILLS Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2018 12596

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2018

First Reading 12596 Second Reading 12597 12:27 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2018 amends the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011(TEQSA Act) to give effect to the government's decision to implement recommendations arising from the 'Review of the impact of the TEQSA Act on the higher education sector'. This review was conducted in line with section 203 of the TEQSA Act, which required that the minister, before 1 January 2016, cause a review to be started of the impact on the higher education sector of the TEQSA Act. In December 2015, terms of reference for the review were determined, with Deloitte Access Economics engaged to undertake the review between July 2016 and March 2017. The review was a substantial body of work: 36 written submissions were received, 33 stakeholders were interviewed, and the TEQSA Act was extensively analysed. Overall, the review was positive about the establishment of TEQSA as the national regulator in 2012, noting that the TEQSA Act is broadly operating effectively and as intended. The review noted that the higher education sector's views regarding the regulatory system established by the act, and TEQSA as the regulator, are positive. The sector sees in TEQSA a regulator that is seeking to reduce the burden imposed by its activities, tailoring its requirements to meet individual features of providers and engaging more fully with the sector. The review therefore did not recommend changes that would significantly alter the regulatory framework or the role of TEQSA as the independent national higher education regulator. The recommendations made by the review are largely technical in nature. They are designed to place TEQSA and the regulatory and quality assurance system established by the act on a stronger footing. This bill gives effect to the review recommendations that require amendments to the TEQSA Act. The measures contained in this bill will improve the already effective and efficient higher education regulatory system, enabling the sector to continue its focus on delivering the highest quality teaching, learning and research, maximising the quality of educational outcomes for students and protecting Australia's international higher education reputation. The bill simplifies the legislative framing of the Higher Education Standards Framework by removing references from the TEQSA Act to specific categories of non-threshold standards that have never been made and are not needed. The capacity to make additional standards will be retained, however, if the need ever arises. The bill requires that TEQSA inform the minister and the Higher Education Standards Panel before it undertakes quality assessment under section 60 of the TEQSA Act that engages the majority of higher education providers. This will ensure that the resource implications of any such activity and the regulatory burden it would create for providers are appropriately considered before undertaking such an assessment. This amendment will remove the need for the current tougher restriction placed on such assessments by Ministerial Direction No. 2 of 2013,which the government will repeal once the TEQSA Amendment Act commences. There are amendments made in relation to the Higher Education Standards Panel. The bill will expand the skill set that the minister must ensure is encompassed by panel members so that, collectively, the panel has contemporary experience in the provision of higher education by both university and non-university providers. This amendment is important for the panel's oversight and advisory roles, ensuring its advice is balanced and reflects a collective understanding of issues relevant to different provider types. The bill also expands the functions of the panel to more appropriately reflect its role to provide oversight of TEQSA's strategic and operational planning and approaches to deregulation, which were functions of the former TEQSA Advisory Council. A new provision will allow TEQSA to disclose higher education information about a regulated entity to a person who has lodged a complaint where TEQSA is satisfied that the information to be disclosed relates to the subject matter of the complaint. Currently TEQSA can publish such information but cannot disclose the information to individual complainant students. This amendment will improve TEQSA's capacity to respond appropriately to complainants, facilitating better engagement between TEQSA and students of higher education providers. Finally, the bill provides for a number of technical amendments, mainly suggested by TEQSA during the review, including minor adjustments to the capacity to disclose both higher education and personal information to the Department of Education and Training and the minister, to facilitate the disclosure of information for research purposes with appropriate safeguards and to clarify quorum provisions for meetings of the TEQSA commissioners. I commend the bill. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 12598 BUSINESS Rearrangement 12598 12:34 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent: (1) private Members' business order of the day No. 17 relating to the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 standing in the name of the Member for Indi being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business, except for Question Time, for final determination by the House; (2) immediately on conclusion of consideration of the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018, private Members' business order of the day No. 23 relating to the Coal-fired Power Funding Prohibition Bill 2018 standing in the name of the Member for Melbourne, being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business, with the exception of Question Time, for final determination by the House; (3) immediately on conclusion of consideration of the Coal-fired Power Funding Prohibition Bill 2018, private Members' business order of the day No. 25 relating to the Migration Amendment (Urgent Medical Treatment) Bill 2018 standing in the name of the Member for Wentworth, being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business, with the exception of Question Time, for final determination by the House; (4) notwithstanding the above, if the leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business agree that order of the day No. 1 relating to the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 should be given priority, then that order of the day shall be given priority over all other business, provided that the orders referred to in (1) to (3) above must be finally determined pursuant to (5) below; and (5) if consideration of the orders of the day has not been completed by 7.30 pm on Wednesday, 5 December, any questions necessary to complete the House's consideration of the orders of the day being put to the House immediately and without delay or intervening debate. We've now got a day and a half of this power-sharing parliament left this year. What is crystal clear is that the Australian people want issues brought up and resolved here that currently the government is trying to hide and stop us from resolving. So we need to suspend standing orders not just to debate these very important private members' bills, which I'll go to in a moment, but to allow them to be brought on for a vote. What is crystal clear is that there is a majority in both houses of this parliament now that want urgent action on climate change, want action on a national integrity commission and want to see better treatment for people that we are currently locking up, to the point where, within the next day—within the next hours—their health is at risk. What we need to do is to make the best use of this last day and a half, not by debating what the government has on the agenda—which is working out how we can take money away from universities and increase fees for students—but, instead, by debating these very important bills. We need a national anticorruption commission in this parliament. Just in the last few days, both houses of parliament have resolved that we should establish one. For the first time ever, a motion that the Greens put through the Senate found its way to the House, and both houses of parliament have said, 'Let's set up a national anticorruption watchdog.' But, despite having days to do something about it, the government has done nothing. Here we are, left with a day and a half of this sitting calendar, and the government has done nothing. We need to suspend standing orders so that we can debate the member for Indi's bill and send it through this House up to the Senate. People have said that there are things that need to be changed in the member for Indi's anticorruption bill. They can be looked at. When the matter comes to the Senate, I am sure the Senate will do its job and look at the amendments that need to be raised and find ways of doing that. But the Senate won't get the chance to do that if the current government continues to stall and prevent us from taking steps to have a national anticorruption watchdog before Christmas. So we must suspend standing orders to allow us to debate the member for Indi's bill. It is a very good working model, one that can be improved, and the Greens have brought amendments into the Senate to improve it. But let's get on with it and let's stop dragging our heels. If you ask most people in the country, 'What would you rather have parliament spend its last day and a half debating—ways of lifting fees for students and cutting funding for universities, or establishing an anticorruption watchdog?' I know what they would say. I hope the government agrees to this motion to prioritise the establishment of an anticorruption watchdog, which we now know both houses of parliament want. What we also know is that, if we leave here in a day and a half with the laws as they are, this government is going to spend the summer months working out how to take money that could be going to schools and hospitals and give it to coal-fired power stations. That's why this motion is so urgent. The government have said that they want a scheme in place over summer to start handing out, shovelling, public money either to keep coal-fired power stations open longer and allow the refurbishment of them or potentially even to go and build new ones. This is environmental madness, but it is also economic madness. It is going to expose the taxpayer to billions and billions of dollars of potential compensation, because the energy minister is saying, 'I might even underwrite their carbon risk in case a future government decides to take action on climate change.' It is urgent that we deal with this now, because those contracts could be signed over summer. We have seen in Victoria what happens when a government that is on its way out booby-traps the budget for a subsequent government. We saw it with the East West Link. They knew that the opposition didn't like it, but they nonetheless went ahead and signed contracts, and it cost us over a billion dollars. Let's prevent it this time by passing a law which says that the government can do what it wants, but it can't dole out money to coal-fired power stations. What could be more urgent than the health and wellbeing of children who are currently locked up in detention and of adults who are being brought to the point of destruction? If we go back a few weeks ago, we had reports of 12-year-old children trying to kill themselves in detention centres under our watch. We now know that the people who are on Manus and Nauru, who are under the Australian government's care, are now at breaking point. They need to be given the medical attention they deserve, and they need to be given it immediately. We are not talking about something that can wait until later—until next year. That's why standing orders have to be suspended. We have to give them medical care now. If any of our children were sick, we would get them to the doctor straightaway. But what we've got is children who we should treat as our own because they are under the Australian government's care now threatening and, in some instances, attempting to kill themselves. They are in urgent need of medical attention, and they just cannot get it in the places where they are. They're locked up, or as good as locked up, and it is affecting their health. We must bring them, and the other people who doctors say are in need of medical attention that they can't currently get on Manus and Nauru, here for medical assistance as soon as possible. The member for Wentworth has brought forward a bill, cosponsored by me and, I think, the member for Denison, to say: let's bring them here. It is a bill that is perfectly consistent with the policies of the other political parties in this place. There is a bill that would now ensure that these people get the urgent medical attention that they need. There can be no basis for opposing this motion, because what could be more urgent than getting people the medical help that they need? If the government do not support this motion, they have to explain why they are not prepared to listen to doctors' advice and give these people the medical assistance they need. The supreme irony is that the Minister for Home Affairs, who is not here, has said that he can't be here because he follows doctor's advice. I guess there's always a first time for everything! We have no confidence, sitting here on the crossbench, that that minister is going to do what the doctors say. Why we need legislation and why we need it urgently is so that people can get the care that they deserve. Another matter that the government and the opposition have said is urgent and needs to be dealt with is encryption. I don't share that view about the urgency of the whole package of bills, nor do I share the view that this bill needs to be passed. I think it's a bill that deserves great scrutiny. There are huge alarm bells being rung not just by people concerned about civil liberties but by the tech sector, who are saying, 'This legislation, in many instances, is really going to make it difficult for us to stay in Australia.' In my view, that is legislation that should be dealt with through the usual processes, but respect the fact that the government has a different view and the opposition may have a different view as well. A provision is included in this suspension motion to allow them to bump that up the agenda if they want. If they consider it so urgent, the numbers are the numbers so they can bring it on and debate it. It cannot be said that in any way we are getting in the way of important government business here, because nothing could be more important than restoring faith in this place by debating and establishing an anticorruption commission; nothing could be more important than stopping the government walking out of here in two days time with a blank chequebook exposing Australian taxpayers to billions of dollars of risk, because of their fetish for coal, because they are still under the control of a hard rump of climate denialists; and nothing could be more important than making sure that people who are under our care get the medical attention that they need. I commend this motion and I urge the government to support it, so that we can debate and vote on what is important to the Australian people. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the motion seconded? Mr Wilkie C2T I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 12:46 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland The government doesn't support the motion proposed by the member for Melbourne. The government has a full agenda for the remaining day and a half of sittings for this calendar year and is anxious to get on with it. I do acknowledge that the range of issues that were raised by the member for Melbourne are significant and are serious, but the government also has plans in place to deal with each of those matters he has discussed in the legislation proposed by himself and the crossbench. In particular, I'd point to the government's agenda today in relation to reducing the cost of living through introducing legislation dealing with the household energy costs, which are a critical part of this government's agenda. This government has taken deliberate action in relation to energy security and reliability of supply, but also in terms of ensuring that individual householders get the benefit of legislation that will put downward pressure on the cost of living for businesses and, in particular, for households. We have a full agenda before us today. Just moments ago the member for Wannon was introducing legislation importantly dealing with a range of matters. In particular, the member for Wannon is keen for his legislation, as Minister for Education, in relation to the cost recovery mechanism for the higher education bills ,which are bills that form part of this government's strong economic plan. This government has a deliberate and strong plan in relation to providing for a safer, stronger and better Australia where everyone can get ahead. It is important that the motion to suspend standing orders not be agreed to, because it allows the government to get on with its plan for the future of our nation. In particular, I refer to the government's agenda in relation to the border protection measures that the member for Melbourne referred to in his motion. The border protection measures this government has been able to bring into place have meant that most children have been removed from Nauru, and people are receiving the benefit of Australian taxpayer funded medical assistance if they are still on Nauru. It is critical that this government be allowed to continue with strong border protection measures to make sure that we don't add to the number of people in detention. In relation to the member for Melbourne's motion and the urgency dealing with that matter, the government has already taken action in that regard. In relation to the member for Melbourne's questions with regard to the urgency associated with climate change, as I referred to earlier, this government has taken action in relation to making sure that we meet our targets, our international commitments, in relation to reducing our emissions but also ensuring that the reliability and affordability of energy is attended to for the benefit of businesses, for the benefit of jobs and particularly—I would note in the presence of the member for Maranoa, the minister for agriculture—for the productivity of our nation. There are many, many agricultural businesses value-adding to the products that are grown in his electorate and mine, which are highly dependent on this government's agenda in terms of reducing the cost of energy, and affordability and reliability of supply. Again, I would say that the suspension of standing orders should not be supported, because the government already has an agenda in relation to ensuring that reliability and affordability of energy is delivered but also we meet our environmental commitments as a good international citizen. In relation to the matters raised by the member for Melbourne regarding the National Integrity Commission, the government has an agenda, and I think there's agreement across the chamber. I think the government has an agenda in terms of ensuring the integrity of this place, and there is a general commitment in that regard, and the government is working with the opposition in that regard as well. Just on the point regarding the government's agenda for the remainder of today, in just a few moments time I was intending to introduce the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill, and that should be allowed to continue. This government takes seriously its commitment to the Australian Defence Force and to our veteran community, and it is critical that the government be allowed to proceed with that agenda as the day progresses. In relation to our serving personnel and making sure they receive the support they require, I think the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill is an important piece of legislation that should be allowed to be introduced in the normal course of business as we continue to provide for the safety and security of our Defence Force personnel but also as we look after our veterans and their families as they transition out of the Defence Force. One aspect of that bill which is particularly significant—and this is why it should be allowed to be introduced in the normal course of business today—deals with our Reserves. The Reserves are such an important part of the Defence Force capability. You'll know, I'm sure, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, from your own experience in your electorate, that the Reserves add a level of additional capability to the Australian Defence Force that is the envy of many other defence forces around the world. Making sure that any issues relating to that defence service can be properly respected in the workplace is important. The legislation I was about to introduce—and, hopefully, will be introducing in a few moments time—deals with making sure that any issues of dispute with employers, if there are any concerns about how the employers are handling the Reserve service of Australian Defence Force personnel, can be properly mediated by the Chief of the Defence Force. It's an important piece of legislation which I hope to have the opportunity to introduce to the House in just a few moments time. The other piece of legislation I referred to just a moment ago relates to ensuring the reliability of energy supply and ensuring that the cost of living for households is addressed in this place. How we're going to take action to reduce the cost of living for individual Australians is, I think, probably one of the most significant issues, if not the most significant issue, that get raised with many of my colleagues on this side of the House, and I'd be surprised if it's not for members on the other side of the House and, in fact, for those on the crossbench. I know you travel throughout many parts of Australia, Mr Deputy Speaker, as does the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. As I travel around regional Australia, the concern the public have in regard to making sure they can afford to put their air-conditioners on and can afford to warm their houses in winter is a fundamental issue, particularly for older Australians. This government is taking action to protect older Australians from inappropriate behaviour by the large gentailers. We are taking action to ensure that their power supply is reliable and, of course, as I mentioned earlier, that we deal with issues in relation to our national emissions targets. The suspension of standing orders shouldn't be supported, because the government has a full agenda ahead for the rest of this sitting day and also going into tomorrow. This government has a strong record of achievement. By proceeding with its own agenda, it has been able to ensure that our economy is stronger. We've seen record job creation over the past five years. We've seen vast improvements to the budget bottom line, so much so that, in 2019, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are expecting to announce a budget surplus ahead of schedule, and we've seen vast improvements in relation to economic growth across the community. So the government's agenda should be allowed to be implemented and the suspension of standing orders should be rejected, because we have more work to do. We have more work to do here in this place and more work to do in the community. I would encourage those opposite to not support the suspension of the standing orders, in recognition that this government is getting on with the job of delivering, as I said, record employment, with more than a million jobs over five years— Mr Burke DYW Maybe for a different reason. Mr CHESTER IPZ The Manager of Opposition Business is sceptical of the claims I'm making, but if he lets me have an extension of time perhaps I can go into more detail about this government's record of achievement. The reason why the government should be allowed to continue with our agenda for today and tomorrow is simply that we do have a strong record of achievement. There is more to be done, and we are getting on with doing it. So it's about making sure that we have a safer Australia, a stronger Australia and a better Australia where everyone can get ahead. Our economic plan is delivering that. Our policies in relation to border protection are delivering that. Our policies in relation to energy and the cost of living are delivering that, as well as our policies in relation to education and health. We've seen increases in funding available across the Australian economy to improve the situation in all communities, large and small. And, as the minister for agriculture pointed out, our policies in relation to drought are delivering relief and benefits for our farming sector. It's important that the government gets on with delivering its agenda. That agenda, through strong economic management and a strong economic plan, has meant that these types of bills that we're introducing here today are affordable. They are delivering outcomes for all Australians. The government will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders. 12:55 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I want to thank the member for Denison for reserving his right to speak, which has given me the opportunity to explain very briefly why the opposition will be supporting this suspension motion. Mr Chester IPZ I thought I had you! Mr BURKE DYW The minister at the table says he thought he had me. He was making some compelling points until he decided that this was an adjudication on whether or not the government is getting on with the job. You had me; you gave it away with one line! Let's not forget what we've been willing to suspend standing orders for. We were willing to suspend the entire parliament, and I participated in suspending the entire parliament, so that we could deal with new laws about strawberries, which were then never used. But we decided that it was important enough to stop the parliament for. Surely if we did that then the state of health and medical advice for people in an extraordinary predicament at the moment with respect to the migration amendment that's before us is a reason for the parliament to pause and say, 'Let's deal with that.' Surely, in the same way, dealing with a national integrity commission, given the views of both houses of parliament, is an issue that is worth having the parliament stop and make sure we deal with it. There will still be time for the different ministers to introduce their bills. There's no doubt that will still be done. Might I add that not only will that be done but also the bills that are being introduced aren't going to be voted on today anyway. In fact, the bill that the minister referred to won't be voted on until February next year at the earliest—if at all, because, as we know, there are only 10 days in eight months to be able to deal with legislation. If they had thought the bill they were introducing today was particularly urgent, they would have put forward a very different sitting calendar. I also want to thank the crossbench and the member for Melbourne for making sure—even though the member for Melbourne has a different view on the bill—that the motion provides that, if there is agreement between the government and the opposition on national security legislation, it will still be allowed to be brought on and dealt with at any point. I think what we have in front of us is a very reasonable set of bills that have been put forward by the crossbench. There is no doubt that these issues are more urgent than simply introducing bills that will not be dealt with by February—and probably, realistically, a whole lot of them won't make it through the parliament until August or September at the earliest. With that in mind, the opposition is happy to support the suspension of standing orders that's in front of us. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by the member for Melbourne be agreed to.

The House divided. [13:02]
(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 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) Sharkie, RCC 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 Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 2 PAIRS Dreyfus, MA Dutton, PC Macklin, JL Sudmalis, A

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

BILLS 12606 BILLS Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Regulations References) Bill 2018 12606

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Regulations References) Bill 2018

First Reading 12606 Second Reading 12606 13:09 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Regulations References) Bill makes technical amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 to future-proof specific references in provisions of the act to regulations made under the act. There are several sets of regulations made under the act dealing with separate matters, such as safety, environmental management and resource management. Each of the regulations is scheduled to sunset over the next few years. There is a risk that current references in the act to the specific titles of regulations will become ineffective when the regulations sunset and are remade with a new title. The amendments made by this bill are therefore necessary to ensure that the act does not need to be amended each time regulations under the act sunset and are remade, with associated risks to the ongoing effective operation of the act. Effective references to regulations are critical to the operation of a number of provisions of the act, including provisions which set out regulations subject to monitoring and investigation under the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 and polluter pays and financial assurance obligations. The amendments will enable the titles of the regulations, or provisions of regulations, relevant to each affected provision of the act to be prescribed by regulation. When the title of a set of regulations changes as a result of remaking those regulations, the reference can be updated by regulatory amendment. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment (Regulations References) Bill 2018 12607

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment (Regulations References) Bill 2018

First Reading 12607 Second Reading 12607 13:12 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment (Regulations References) Bill 2018 makes technical amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Act 2003 (the levies act) to future-proof specific references in provisions of the levies act to regulations made under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (the OPGGS Act). The amendments are equivalent in purpose and effect to the amendments made to the OPGGS Act by the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Regulations References) Bill 2018. Effective references to regulations are critical to the operation of a number of provisions of the levies act, including provisions which impose levies to fund the operations of the regulator for the offshore petroleum industry—the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority—on a cost recovery basis. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 12607

Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

First Reading 12607 Second Reading 12608 13:14 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. The bill is designed to enhance the selection process and independence of Judge Advocates under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 and the general operation of the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001. Schedule 1 of the bill will amend the Defence Force Discipline Act to ensure greater transparency in the selection of judge advocates and to enhance their independence. Schedule 3 will also amend the Defence Force Discipline Act, making minor and technical amendments without affecting the operation of the act. Judge advocates are senior military legal officers appointed by the Chief of the Defence Force or a service chief, who assist court martial members with the application of military law or sit as defence force magistrates in the trial of accused persons. Judge advocates are central to the proper operation of the superior tribunals. The amendments proposed in this bill will allow the Chief of the Defence Force to determine selection criteria and a selection process for appointment to the Judge advocates panel in a notifiable instrument. This will provide for a more open and transparent selection process, including public advertisement. The amendments will include mechanisms for termination and resignation of appointments to the Judge advocates panel, extend the maximum length of appointment from three years to five years and set remuneration in an equivalent manner to the Registrar of Military Justice and the Chief Judge Advocate. The amendments will also make changes to the provisions dealing with the Chief Judge Advocate, who is appointed from the judge advocates panel by the Judge Advocate General, to provide him or her with administrative assistance. The amendments will: provide for the Judge Advocate General to determine, in a notifiable instrument, the selection criteria and selection process for appointing the Chief Judge Advocate; provide for termination of the Chief Judge Advocate position, consistent with standard provisions for termination of statutory appointments; and establish the position of Deputy Chief Judge Advocate to provide administrative assistance to the Chief Judge Advocate, including provision for the Judge Advocate General to determine the selection criteria and process in a notifiable instrument, and provision for their remuneration to be determined by the remuneration tribunal. Together, these measures will modernise the relevant provisions in the Defence Force Discipline Act, help to attract a wider pool of suitable candidates, separate the judge advocates from potential command influence and maintain the judge advocate capability in the military justice system. Schedule 2 of the bill will move the complaints and mediation scheme from the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Regulations 2001 to the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001. Other amendments will operate to repeal the existing regulations. Their content will either be moved into the act or included in rules made by a defence minister. The Defence Reserve Service Protection Act provides for the protection of reservists in their civilian employment and education to facilitate their return to civilian life after rendering Defence service and for other related purposes. It sets out entitlements and prohibitions that apply in relation to people who at any time render service as reservists. The act mitigates some of the employment and financial disadvantages reservists may face when rendering Defence service and facilitates their availability to undertake Defence service, thereby enhancing Defence capability. An important feature of the management of the reserve workforce is the scheme for receiving and investigating complaints relating to matters arising under the act and for facilitating mediation of such matters. This scheme is currently set out in the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Regulations 2001, and vests the Office of Reserve Service Protection with various powers to receive and investigate such complaints. In the course of amending the act last year, the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee recommended that the complaints and mediation scheme, which contains significant matters, should be moved from the regulations into the act. This recommendation was subsequently accepted by the government and will be implemented by Schedule 2 of the bill. While the new scheme in the current bill is based on the regulations, some changes have been made to simplify and modernise the complaint and mediation process. The most significant change is to vest the relevant complaint-handling powers in the Chief of the Defence Force. Previously, the Office of Reserve Service Protection received and handled complaints. While that office will continue to operate on an administrative basis within the Department of Defence, it is appropriate for powers relating to complaints and investigations to reside with the CDF as the head of the Australian Defence Force to ensure clear line of accountability. There is a new requirement for CDF to prepare a report in relation to the administration and operation of the act for inclusion in the Defence annual report each year. Under the bill, a person may make a complaint to the CDF about an alleged contravention of the act. An example is where a reservist complains that his or her civilian employment has been terminated due to their military service. The bill gives CDF the necessary flexibility to handle the complaint as he or she sees appropriate, including by conducting an investigation. Investigations may be conducted for any suspected contravention of the act, even where there is no complaint. In investigating a matter, the CDF may give notices to individuals to produce information or documents. For example, a notice requiring a reservist's civilian employer to produce a termination notice or employment contract. Civil penalties may be imposed for failure to comply with a notice. This removes the former criminal offence and brings the offence in line with other civil penalty provisions in the act. The bill will simplify the complaint-handling and investigation process by removing unnecessarily prescriptive provisions from the existing scheme. It will also authorise the CDF to disclose an investigation report or information to specific individuals, such as a complainant or other affected persons. The bill will allow the CDF to provide dispute resolution services to facilitate a negotiated outcome in the event of a dispute under the act. This simplifies the previous mediation provisions which contained unnecessary detail about the qualifications of mediators and operation of mediation services, and also allows for dispute resolution services apart from mediation. The bill will also provide for compulsory conferences, where the CDF can compel parties to attend a conference to advise them of their rights and obligations under the act, identify the issues in dispute, and facilitate discussion between the parties. For example, a compulsory conference between a reservist and his or her former civilian employer regarding the termination of their employment. The complaint-handling function is an important feature of Reserve protection, with over 1,400 inquiries relating to service protection issues received in the 2017-18 financial year—two-thirds of those from reservists and the remaining third from employers. These changes to the process will help to ensure that all complaints are dealt with swiftly, flexibly and fairly. This bill moves to make some small but significant changes to Defence legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Parliamentary Service Amendment (Post-election Report) Bill 2018 12610

Parliamentary Service Amendment (Post-election Report) Bill 2018

First Reading 12610 Second Reading 12610 13:22 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Parliamentary Service Amendment (Post-election Report) Bill 2018 amends the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 in relation to the timing for the release of the post-election report of election commitments, prepared by the Parliamentary Budget Office. The Parliamentary Service Act 1999requires the Parliamentary Budget Office to prepare and publicly release a post-election report on election commitments, following a general election. The report presents the budget impacts of election commitments that would have a material impact on the Commonwealth budget, and provides an indication of the total impact a party's election platform would have on the Commonwealth budget for the current and next three financial years, if those election commitments were enacted as announced. An independent review was established in November 2016 to examine how the Parliamentary Budget Office could continue to build on its foundations. The review was undertaken by Dr Ian Watt and Mr Barry Anderson, and the report of recommendations was published in March 2017. The review recommended allowing more time to prepare the report, noting that other recommendations of the review were to increase the scope of the report by including the medium-term financial impacts of election commitments and including the policies of parties with less than five members where those parties elect to be included. The Parliamentary Budget Office is already working to implement these changes to the scope of the report, which does not require legislative change. Only the proposal to change the timing of the post-election report requires change to legislation. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and the Presiding Officers have agreed to the change in timing for the publication of the report. The delayed publication not only is intended to accommodate the changed scope of these reports by the Parliamentary Budget Office but is also expected to enhance the visibility of the post-election report by moving the timing closer to the resumption of parliamentary sittings. It is important for all Australians to understand that there is transparency when it comes to identifying the budget impacts of election commitments. It is important that the post-election report is accessible, informative and still available in time to inform deliberations of parliament. And it is desirable that the new arrangements to enhance the visibility of the report are in place before the next post-election report is published. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2018 12611 First Reading 12611 Second Reading 12611 13:26 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to define energy market misconduct and provide a series of penalties and remedies for companies engaging in misconduct that is prohibited. The Australian energy market has not been serving consumers well. That's why the Liberal-National government directed the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission to undertake a Retail Electricity Pricing Inquiry in March 2017. This review identified problems in the retail, wholesale and contract markets, calling the situation 'unacceptable and unsustainable' and noting that energy retailers 'have played a major role in poor outcomes for consumers'. The ACCC found three key failures. In the retail market, retailers deliberately confuse customers with their discounting strategy, often using what the ACCC call 'excessively' high benchmarks and complex offer structures. In the wholesale market, a lack of competition has resulted in higher prices. In the contract market, a lack of liquidity acts as a barrier to entry, where the dominant position of gentailers can make it harder for smaller retailers to get hedging contracts and therefore to compete. It is these problems that the government is seeking to address in order to strengthen competition in the market and put downward pressure on electricity prices. The measures in this bill build on a package of other initiatives that the government has recently announced to ensure that Australians have access to affordable and reliable energy. The government is acting swiftly to introduce a default market offer, which will act as a price safety net for households and small businesses. A default offer will protect consumers from being exploited while still allowing for the benefits of retail competition. It will prevent retailers from exploiting consumers and small business with inflated standing offers. The Australian Energy Regulator has started work on cheaper, comparable default prices to be introduced by 30 April 2019, with savings being passed through to families and small businesses by 1 July 2019. The government is also acting to simplify the confusing array of offers that are currently on the market by requiring retailers to use the new default rate as a reference point for all advertised discounts. This will give customers more clarity when they compare retailers and offers and help ensure that they get the best deal. The government will also underwrite new firm, low-cost generation, which is particularly important for Australia's commercial and industrial users, whom the ACCC found were struggling to get medium- to long-term contracts. This program will be technology neutral, as recommended by the ACCC. The bill we introduce today is an essential part of this package and will address energy market misconduct, improve competition and bring down energy prices for Australian consumers. The government has directed the ACCC to monitor retail prices, wholesale bids and contract market liquidity in the National Electricity Market between 2018 and 2025 and announced that this would be backed up by a series of remedies where the ACCC identifies misconduct by electricity market participants. This bill will establish the misconduct to be prohibited, and targeted, proportionate remedies to apply in respect of misconduct in three key areas. First, the retail market. In the event of a 'sustained and substantial' reduction in supply chain costs, retailers will be required to 'make reasonable adjustments' to their retail price offers, including to households and small businesses. The explanatory memorandum makes clear retailers will not be required to pass on small or short-term cost variations that might last a week or a month. Rather, if they enjoyed a sustained and substantial cost reduction, they need to pass it on. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Mr Frydenberg FKL I am happy to table the remainder of my speech. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 Thank you, Minister. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 12612 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS International Volunteer Day 12612 13:30 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Today is International Volunteer Day, and on every International Volunteer Day across the Bendigo electorate we like to acknowledge some of the superstars in our community. To begin with, though, if all of our volunteers across central Victoria stopped doing what they do, then literally the whole of our community would stop. Our volunteers are the lifeblood of so many of our communities. That's why I'm really proud today to acknowledge Karen Whillance. Karen is a volunteer at the Bendigo Health Emergency Department. I would also like to acknowledge Shannon Appleby. Shannon works tirelessly for headspace in their inclusion program. What Shannon wants to see is more support that engages young people in diverse groups. I would also like to acknowledge Tom Nicholson from the Bendigo Umpires Association and the North Bendigo Junior Football Club for ensuring that everybody gets an opportunity to play sport. Then there is Trevor Butcher, who is the president of the camp reserve committee. Trevor makes sure that, when the Loddon Prison day release program comes every second Friday, they have a trained supervisor and support. I would also like to acknowledge 'the warrior', Karen O'Sullivan, who is the president of the Kyneton Football Netball Club. She is the first female president in 150 years. This sends the message that anybody can be involved in leadership and be a leader of their sports community. They are just a few of our many superstar volunteers. Dividend Imputation 12613 13:31 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I would like to draw the House's attention to the issue of Labor's proposed retirement tax, which would enable them to steal— Opposition members interjecting— Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 'theft' is the correct word—the franking credits of 1.4 million older Australians on low incomes. Franking credits are based on a simple principle: the profits of a business belong to the shareholders, belong to the partners or belong to the owners of that business. To avoid double taxation, the profits are paid at the marginal rate of that person's tax. So any profits paid by the company are immediately withholding tax. For example, if someone has a marginal tax rate of 45 per cent and they receive a distribution from the company as profits, and profits have already been taken out, they then pay additional tax to make up the difference to their marginal tax rate. Likewise, a person on a marginal tax rate below the 30 per cent company rate gets a refund so that tax paid is the equivalent of their marginal tax rate. Ms Ryan 249224 A refund when they haven't paid any tax! Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 You can hear the comments of the Labor Party. They simply do not understand this. We have members over there who want to steal franking credits. Labor's retiree tax is a disgrace. There are 1.4 million older Australians who are going to have their income slashed! (Time expired) National Disability Insurance Scheme 12613 13:29 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I want to speak about the NDIS, which is something that is very close to my heart. On this side, we remain proud of the NDIS and we're determined to make it a success. A future Labor government will strive to ensure that the NDIS and the NDIA are properly funded and appropriately staffed. Labor's calculations on its funding were signed off by the Department of Finance over a 10-year period. We have funded the NDIS. What we have seen from the coalition, since 2013, is a denial of the obvious systemic problems with the NDIS that need to be addressed. I found the statements about the NDIS made yesterday in the House by the member for Bradfield, who is the minister responsible, absolutely disgraceful in his denial of the systemic problems that we need to address. There are many systemic problems with the NDIS, including the lack of funding for advocacy, poor training of the planners, lack of help with people with severe mental illness, lack of ability to deal with people with relapsing-remitting medical conditions such as MS, as well as the poor consistency and lack of support for those who are not able to advocate for themselves. These problems need to be fixed if the NDIS is going to work in the way it was designed. I've seen this not only as a politician but also as a paediatrician. I am inundated now with people coming to see me, people in great need, who need a better functioning NDIS. The fact that those opposite deny there is a problem— (Time expired) Mackellar Electorate: Monika's Doggie Rescue 12614 13:35 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Monika's Doggie Rescue is Australia's largest no-kill charity. Since opening its doors in 2001, Doggie Rescue has saved the lives of over 12,000 dogs. Monika's Doggie Rescue is in Ingleside, a suburb that has recently been saved from the overdevelopment plans of Labor and the Greens. Doggie Rescue is a largely volunteer-run organisation that survives on donations from the public. Doggie Rescue receives the dogs mostly from council pounds. These dogs have been abandoned, abused and deprived. They arrive extremely stressed. Doggie Rescue works to turn these little lives around and teach dogs to trust again. Part of teaching this trust is giving them a place to run around and be free. For some years Monika has dreamed of creating her own off-leash park, a space where the dogs can do just that. Doggie Rescue Freedom Dog Park is the newest project that will allow the rescued dogs the space they need to heal and recover before being rehomed to a new home forever. Scrolling through Monika's monthly newsletter on her Facebook group, it is easy to see why so many dogs have been successfully rehomed. Monika and her team rehabilitate these dogs in such a magnificent way. Many happy customers, if you will, remark that not only have they saved a dog's life but, in return, a dog has saved theirs. Canberra Electorate 12614 13:36 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra This is my final 90-second statement for 2018. I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has helped me serve and advocate for the Canberra community over the course of the year. On this International Volunteers Day, I want to thank Jack McCaffrie, Kerry Burton, Eva Cawthorne, Ian Pieper, William Pieper, Anne Gardiner, Jenny Nicholson, Jacob Biggs, Deb Biggs, Chris Siedl, Liz Morris, Sandi and Diya Mitra, Alex Wang, Shannon Cook, Tim Dobson, Maryam Khazaeli, Mal Larson, Robyn McIntosh, Sam Wilson, Joann Khaira, Eric Topp, Lucy Topp, Charlotte Corbyn, Helen Fraser, Toni Skyy, Ian McLure, Gerry Lloyd, Jen Newman, Georgina Vallance, Chris Lang, Nick Wheeler, Jay McLinden and Cath Byrne. I also want to thank my part-time team of Martin Geng, Neda Fereidounkhan, Catherine Moggach, Benjamin Magrath, Robert Potter and Byron Nagy, and my ANU intern Kate Dawson. Finally, I thank my tireless fab full-time team of Vic Robertson, Steph Brimson and Drew Eppelstun. Enjoy the break, Canberra. Enjoy the time with your family and friends and the opportunity to reflect on what is important. And please, if you're travelling interstate, travel safely—and stop, revive and survive. Please enjoy the break. Berowra Electorate: Beecroft Rugby Club 12615 13:38 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Beecroft Rugby Club is an excellent sporting club in my electorate, with its headquarters in Headen Park, Thornleigh. The BRC is this year celebrating its 20th anniversary. The club was formed in 1998 when St Leo's Old Boys Rugby and Ku-ring-gai High Old Boys merged to create Beecroft Rugby Club. The club provides quality amateur sporting competitions in our community. It is one of the youngest, strongest clubs in the suburban rugby competition. BRC has over 120 players, from ages six to17, and they play in four senior grade teams and one under-21 colts team. BRC's junior club, the Northern Barbarians, has over 300 active players. I want to acknowledge the senior club office-bearers—the president, Ben Ashwood; the treasurer, Peter May; and the secretary, Luke Meehan—for all the work they do for the club and their community. I met with longstanding club members Josh Bowen and Peter May at BRC's Headen Park home ground during the festival of rugby. They told me about the club's ambitious plans to grow rugby union participation in senior women's 7s and young men's competitions. But the BRC clubhouse facility at Headen Park doesn't have capacity for current players and is jeopardising the club's expansion plans and their ability to play in more competitions. The club want to build a second level on their existing clubhouse to upgrade the change rooms, the referee rooms, the toilets and the clubhouse to continue to accommodate the community. This would improve accessibility as well as the community experience for visiting players and spectators. I'm here to fight for a better Headen Park for everyone, and I support the Beecroft Rugby Club in their desire to do that. Oxley Electorate: Mount Ommaney Small Business Awards 12615 13:39 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Recently, I had the pleasure of attending the Mount Ommaney Small Business Awards, hosted by hardworking local state MP Ms Jessica Pugh, alongside the Queensland Minister for Employment and Small Business, the Hon. Shannon Fentiman. The pride of the Centenary Suburbs business community was on show for what could only be likened to the Oscars for local business, such was the energy and anticipation in the room. In an incredible show of support from local residents, over 4,000 votes were cast and there were over 150 nominations to recognise the outstanding service and dedication of local small businesses, hosted by the Centenary and Districts Chamber of Commerce. My congratulations to all the businesses that received awards on the evening: KPR Automotive; Brittney Young from Oz Wagtails; Centenary Natural Therapies Clinic; Rebecca Bennett from Reclaim Health and Rehabilitation; GJ Barber and Meg Burns from Gem Hair and Stuff; Peter Kolb Amcal Pharmacy; Fred Ottoway from Mister Minit Mount Ommaney; Madders Brothers Patisserie; Julie Nguyen from Middle Park Bakery; Jason Sallaway Jewellery; Rosie DeRe from the Little Trike; White Lies Brewing; Sam Baxter from All Things Tasmanian; SewMasters; Knock On Wood Toys; Reclaim Health and Rehabilitation; and the winners of Small Business of the Year, the mighty Just Poppy's and Just Gelato n Shakes. I would also like to make special mention of the executive of the chamber of commerce in our local Centenary area. They did a fantastic job on the night. And thanks to St Catherine's Football Club for hosting the event, and to all the attendees. Well done. I look forward to next year's event being bigger and better than ever before. Groom Electorate: Telecommunications 12616 13:41 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom I'm very pleased to acknowledge the official activation of the new mobile phone tower just off the Goombungee Meringandan Road north-west of Toowoomba. This was a priority location under the coalition government's Mobile Black Spot Program. Other areas have received attention under two previous rounds of the program. They included the Haden Maclagan Road, Doctors Creek Road, Mount Tyson and Hampton. The Meringandan and Highfields region is growing at a rapid rate, so it is vital that we keep up with the necessary telecommunications infrastructure to support local families and businesses. The coalition is investing $220 million in fixing mobile black spots. That leverages the total investment of $680 million towards improving phone coverage—that is together with funding from state and local governments and, of course, from mobile network operators. The rollout of the first three rounds is on track to deliver 867 stations nationwide by June 2019. We announced a fourth round in October. In contrast to this effort, Labor has never had such a round. The coalition has funded 867 black spots; Labor has funded zero—not interested. This is further proof that the Labor Party does not care in any way whatsoever about regional Australia. Petition: Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome 12616 13:42 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I rise today in parliament to formally table a petition signed by close to 1,400 people around Australia who are living with myalgic encephalomyelitis, sometimes known as chronic fatigue syndrome. Up to 240,000 Australians are struggling with ME. It is a chronic multisystem illness that has a devastating impact. An estimated 25 per cent of people with ME are left bed-bound, and 75 per cent are unable to work. Many severely affected sufferers require complex care and disability support services. Despite this, research is grossly underfunded and people living with ME are routinely rejected for financial support, including the NDIS. Two months ago I spoke in this place about ME, after which hundreds of people contacted me or left comments to share their deeply moving stories of life with the condition. Thank you to every person who shared their story and drove home to me the reality of life with ME. It is time for the Australian government to get serious about ME. I call on the government to work to help to remove the stigma that is still too often associated with ME. It must help change the GP guidelines to ensure that GPs better understand the disease and don't prescribe outdated and potentially harmful treatment regimes. And government must start properly funding research into ME/CFS. Over the last 16 years, ME has received an average of 53c per patient of funding a year, and that is shameful. The petition calls on the government to end unfair rejection of NDIS applications and add ME to the list B of permanent conditions where further assessment is required. To everyone who worked so hard to bring this message to parliament, thank you. I table the petition. The petition read as follows— This petition of people living with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) draws to the attention of the House the many Australians with ME/CFS whose applications for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) are being unfairly rejected. We ask the Australian Government to work with Emerge Australia to address this injustice. We request for action by the House to: 1. Partner with the ME/CFS community to develop appropriate guidelines for NDIS assessors. 2. Add ME/CFS to List B of permanent conditions where further assessment is required. from 1318 citizens (Petition No. PN0389) People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 12617 13:44 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney I'm not usually one to ham it up, but the cat has been let out of the bag. We have reports of an organised campaign to change the way Australians speak by removing meat related metaphors. A campaign from the registered charity People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals seeks to remove phrases like 'bringing home the bacon' and 'putting your eggs in one basket', because they offend vegans and vegetarians. It's beyond a joke; it's pathetic. I was shocked to learn that this forms part of the gender debate in this country, with one academic arguing for change saying, 'Meat is power and meat is for men.' Well, fair suck of the sav! Surely in this country we have bigger fish to fry than banning harmless descriptions. But these turkeys need to be called out early. Our goose is not yet cooked. I'm not replacing 'all my eggs in one basket' with 'all your berries in a bowl' or replacing 'flog a dead horse' with 'feed a fed horse'. Ironically, that's a quick way to kill one. I will continue to take the bull by the horns and try to kill two birds with one stone, and there will always be more than one way to skin a cat. Long may the sensible and pragmatic outnumber the pork chops who, on this one, are quite clearly flogging a dead horse. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I'm all but speechless there, Member for Tangney. Member for Fadden 12617 13:45 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Fair suck of the sauce bottle! Have I not heard it all! That was an amazing contribution from the member for Tangney. I want to start by responding to some of the ill-informed remarks that were made earlier today by the member for Forrest, who had a crack at all of the members from Western Australia here on this side, saying that we didn't have any respect for farmers. As someone whose family has been well connected to farming, as have those of many on this side, they were insulting words coming from the member for Forrest. But it's not surprising to see that those on the other side don't really understand and have a bit of an awkward relationship with the truth, because I want to draw the chamber's attention to the concept of a conflict of interest. It is a situation in which a person is in a position to derive a personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity. I saw in the paper today that the member for Fadden is apparently going to announce that there will be a task force review into the concept of what is meant by 'Australian made' and 'made in Australia'. It will look at the origin labelling in this country, which is fascinating when we realise that he is a major shareholder in a company that sells supplements that are currently being affected negatively by this regime and is seeking, it would appear— Ms Henderson ZN4 On a point of order, I'd ask that that comment be withdrawn. It reflects on the member in a way that is not supported by the standing orders. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The comment hadn't been finished, but, I apologise to the member, the time has expired. Economy 12618 13:47 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax With the national accounts released again today, we see the Australian economy is rock-solid and growing. But we have to remember, of course, that the strong economy we have is not the endgame by any stretch; it's the means by which we can deliver infrastructure and provide vital services. Take the Sunshine Coast, for instance. Unless we have a strong economy, we wouldn't be seeing $3 billion being spent on the Bruce Highway. We wouldn't be seeing $390 million on the North Coast line. We wouldn't be seeing a $181 million concessional loan for the international airport. We wouldn't be seeing the record spending on hospitals, schools, bulk billing and the PBS. At the end of the day, a strong economy is what ensures we can deliver the infrastructure and have the services. Those opposite haven't got a clue when it comes to the economy. They never have had. They've never known how to manage an economy. Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 If you're unsure at all, then have a look at the Queensland Labor government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member will resume his seat. The member for Griffith on a point of order. Ms Butler 248006 I ask that the member for Lyons be given the opportunity to offer his point of order before it's ruled upon. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I obviously am aware that there has been a point of order called that the members of the opposition are not happy with. I take that. I will not be taking points of order for the remainder of the 90-second statements. United Voice 12618 13:49 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I had the great privilege recently of welcoming a team of United Voice members to our nation's parliament. I thank Kylie Grey, Trevor Rogers, Darcy Castrignano, Sajita Sitaula Aryal, Gamal Babiker and Andrew Beattie for meeting with me and for sharing their stories about their difficulty in getting a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. We get a lot of professional lobbyists in and out of this building, but I can tell the Australian people that the ones we on this side of the House listen to most are the ordinary people who come into our offices, often from far-flung parts of the country, and talk to us about the things affecting them. The team that came to Canberra are part of the 120,000 Australian workers United Voice represent. They form the backbone of our communities: our cleaners, our childcare workers, our hospitality workers and the security staff that protect us. We live in a country where inequality is increasing fast. We have an economy that's continuing to deliver strongly for the people who sit at the top of the labour market but, as our economy is growing, the standard of living for a lot of low-wage workers is going backwards. Our industrial system has always sought to level the playing field between workers and employers, and I believe we need to make sure that it's continuing to do that. One in four workers are now paid the bare legal minimum, wage growth is at its lowest since 1991 and four in 10 workers are in insecure work, so I join with United Voice in asking that Australia get a pay rise. Fisher Electorate: Sunshine Coast Casino 12619 13:50 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher If ever there were any doubt, this week we have finally demonstrated once and for all that the Sunshine Coast community utterly rejects Mayor Jamieson's desire to see a casino built in our region. Alongside thousands of my constituents, I have been fighting this proposal since it first became public last year. I immediately started a petition and, within months, more than 7,000 local residents had signed to declare their opposition to this community-changing casino. I held a casino forum where more than 300 local residents attended to voice their unanimous and passionate rejection of this ill-judged scheme. The mayor refused to attend, and ever since he has continued to be evasive. This week, thanks to a great initiative of the Sunshine Coast Daily, we now have robust ReachTEL data that tells us exactly what our region thinks about this issue: 81 per cent want a convention centre—that's great—yet, asked if they want to support a casino, even if it included such a convention centre, nearly 76 per cent gave an emphatic no. I don't want to see local lives destroyed and our community changed forever by a casino on the Sunshine Coast. No less than three-quarters of my constituents agree. If the mayor wants to continue with his push for a casino, he should make it an essential plank of his re-election campaign in 2020 and let the people decide his fate. Energy 12619 13:52 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Monty Python is not meant to be an idiot's guide to government, but that's what we have opposite. I'm a fan of Life of Brian, as you might expect, but art is coming dangerously close to imitating life in this place. Instead of Biggus Dickus we have the energy minister, Biggus Stickus, or, as we are yet to see his energy policy, perhaps Tiny Twiggus. We have the various factions opposite—Julia's 'People's Front of Liberals', Tony's 'Liberal Front of People', Scott's 'Front of Liberal People'—all over there in their rainbow colours. It would be funny if it weren't so serious. After 5½ years of Liberal government, our country has no energy policy. We have lots of gonnas—'gonna do this; gonna do that'—but the only thing this country has is instability and uncertainty. This week Derwent Valley dairy farmer David Jones told the ABC that he expects his power prices, after five years of Liberal government in Tasmania and five years of Liberal government in Canberra, to go up $30,000, to $100,000, next year. After five years of Liberal government, that's what has happened to energy under you. Only Labor has a policy for energy security, only Labor has a policy that will provide certainty for investors and only Labor has a policy that will bring prices down for consumers. Flynn Electorate: Bushfires 12619 13:53 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn In the last week, many fires have been burning across the electorate of Flynn. I'm happy to announce that the fires have been extinguished thanks to rain overnight—up to 40 mil in most cases. I'm pleased to hear that people have been allowed back to access their homes after being evacuated one week ago. Last Saturday I had the pleasure of introducing Michael McCormack, the Acting Prime Minister, and the Hon. Linda Reynolds to the Assistant Commissioner of Queensland Fire and Emergency Services, Mr David Hermann. We visited Mount Larcom school, the control centre at Agnes Water and the evacuation centre at Miriam Vale. The message is loud and clear: allow householders and landholders to install fire barriers around their properties and use cool burns when weather is favourable, like in wintertime and before early rain. Indigenous people and our ancestors have been doing this for many years. As kids on the farm we always carried a box of matches for lighting fires, not for smoking cigarettes. Tasmania: Energy 12620 13:54 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon This government claims its policy—and might I say lack of—is driving down power prices. I'm not sure what planet it's on, because power prices in Tasmania are going up and up under a state and federal Liberal government, hurting Tasmanian families and businesses. John Dabner, a tourism operator in my electorate of Braddon, has said publicly that his business power bill jumped by $50,000 in the past year to $150,000. A local Tassie farmer reports his business's power bill has increased by 30 per cent, that's $30,000, to what he expects next year to be $100,000 a year. If this trend continues, Tasmanian businesses have said they'll have no choice but to shut their doors, costing jobs and costing the local economy. Tasmanian energy consultant Mark White has stated, 'Job losses are inevitable in some sectors in my state due to skyrocketing power prices.' The lack of a clear national energy policy is hurting Tasmanian businesses, threatening jobs and our economy. Tasmanian families and businesses are paying the price for the Liberal government's chaos, division and dysfunction. Yet, on this side, Labor has a clear and comprehensive energy policy that will grow jobs in Tasmania, boosting our economy and putting downward pressure on power prices. My electorate will greatly benefit, because we will create a renewable energy zone in the north-west of Tasmania building more wind farms, Minister—the things you hate. Queensland: Bushfires 12620 13:56 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker The bushfires in Queensland are a timely reminder to stay vigilant as summer begins. I want to give a shout-out to the hundreds of firefighting volunteers from South Australia who joined efforts in Queensland in the last couple of weeks. It's in the true Aussie spirit, the spirit of volunteers, that they were ready and willing to travel into dangerous and often life-threatening situations to battle fires that threatened the homes and towns of communities that weren't their own, such is the dedication of our firefighting volunteers. As I pick up editions of my local papers, I'm reading stories about local CFS volunteers heading off to help crews in Queensland. Our firefighting volunteers make up such an important part of so many regional communities across the country. It's especially poignant today as we celebrate International Volunteer Day. The theme for International Volunteer Day 2018 is 'volunteers build resilient communities', recognising volunteers worldwide with a special focus on local community volunteers. I can't think of a better example of volunteerism than those brave women and men from my community who have travelled interstate to put themselves in harm's way. To all the volunteer firefighters across our nation, and particularly those that have left their families, their homes and their communities to help others: we appreciate your dedication, and we appreciate your hard work in often dangerous, life-threatening conditions. Morrison Government 12620 13:57 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam Every year on Thanksgiving, the US President gathers in the rose garden with his advisers, family and members of the US press gallery for the annual turkey pardon. It's a great ceremony. The president picks out one turkey out of thousands and saves it from execution. It's a unifying event. It brings the whole nation together with a feeling of sentimental attachment to the pardoned turkey. This year the run-off was between an 18-kilogram beauty by the name of Peas and a 19-kilogram beast by the name of Carrots. There was an election. Peas won. There was a dispute. There was a re-election and Peas won again. It appears that the practice has lost something in translation across the Atlantic, because this year when the Prime Minister conducted his own version of a turkey pardon there was no up-swelling of gratitude when he saved the member for Hughes. Far from being a unifying event— (Time expired) Energy 12621 13:59 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler In recent weeks we have heard a lot about the big stick, and I note the contribution and the attempt at Monty Python humour earlier. What we do need to talk about will be the application of this legislation when the opportunity comes up. I'm pleased that Minister Angus Taylor is in the House to hear this contribution, because, the moment that the big stick is in the holster and available, I will say to the minister, 'Get the big stick out and point it straight at Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and the Queensland Labor government, because there is no-one in this country who is robbing more money from electricity consumers than the Queensland Labor government.' We should take the big stick at the first opportunity, bust up one of the biggest monopolies in this country and drive down prices for people in regional Queensland in particular, because in regional Queensland there is no competition. There is no-one else to go to. Queensland Labor are robbing $2.2 million— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hinkler will resume his seat. It being 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 12621 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 12621 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Today's national accounts confirm that, over the last quarter, Australia's economic growth rate has gone down and living standards have fallen. Growth in household consumption is now the weakest it has been in more than five years, and over the last year corporate profits have grown six times faster than wages. Doesn't this just prove that, while this government is busy fighting itself, everything is going up except people's wages? 14:00 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong One thing's for certain: we on this side of the House won't talk down the Australian economy. We won't talk down the Australian economy, and that's because today's national accounts reveal that the Australian economy is still growing strongly. At 2.8 per cent, it's faster than the OECD average and faster than any G7 country except the United States. That's our economic record. Over 1.1 million new jobs have been created. We're one of only 10 nations in the world to have a AAA credit rating from the three leading credit-rating agencies. Unemployment has come down to five per cent, the lowest level since 2012, and, as the Prime Minister has pointed out numerous times to this chamber, over 100,000 young people have got a job over the last financial year. That is our record, compared to those opposite. When they were in government, debt was rising and unemployment was rising, and they had no plan for the economy of Australia. Let me just remind the House of a few numbers. Today's national accounts have revealed that GDP growth is 2.8 per cent. What was it when Labor was last in office, in September 2013, when we came to government? It was 2.1 per cent. GDP-per-capita growth averaged just 0.5 per cent in Labor's last year in office. What is GDP-per-capita growth today? It was 0.5 per cent when Labor was in office; today it's 1.2 per cent. Compensation of employees is now 4.3 per cent. What was it in Labor's last year in office? It was 3.2 per cent. It doesn't matter which economic data, which indicator, you look at today; we are doing better than Labor ever did. We are growing the economy. We're creating more jobs. We've seen our AAA credit rating reaffirmed, and next year we will deliver the first budget surplus in more than a decade. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition is seeking to table a document? Mr Shorten 00ATG I am. I just want to table a document that shows that corporate profits are up by six times wages in this country. Leave not granted. Economy 12622 14:03 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is protecting the standard of living of Australians and securing their future opportunities by making Australia even stronger? 14:03 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Boothby for her question. She asks me about protecting the standard of living of Australians and securing future opportunities. The way we're doing that is that we're running a strong economy, and we have been from the day we came into office. From that day to now, more than 1.1 million jobs have been created. In the last 12 months, over 100,000 young people got a job, the strongest growth in youth employment in Australia's economic history. Unemployment has come down to five per cent, with 50,000 fewer people unemployed than at the last election—the lowest level of welfare dependency of the working-age population in more than 25 years. That's the economy we're running. Today's national accounts show that nominal GDP growth was 5.2 per cent through the year. That's above the 4.5 per cent forecasted assumption for 2017-18, which was under the most recent budget. For this current year, the forecast was 3.75 per cent. The nominal growth outcome, which is running already in this first quarter of the year, is running ahead of what the budget was projecting for this year. That means that our budget is on track. That means that, on 2 April next year, our government will bring down the first surplus budget in more than a decade, because we know how to run a strong economy. The fact that we can bring the budget back into surplus means that we're able to increase funding for schools by $37.6 billion. Per student funding is up, on average, by 62 per cent. That's what you can do when you get the budget back in balance and when you can get the economy running in the right direction. It enables you to put a rolling program of $75 billion into infrastructure, including over half a billion dollars into important water infrastructure that is giving us resilience against droughts into the future. It enables you to do $144 billion worth of personal income tax cuts. Those personal income tax cuts were legislated by this government and were put in this year's budget, and they were opposed by the Labor Party. If they were elected, they would wipe out half of those tax cuts for hardworking Australians. On top of that, it enables us to keep Australians safe. This morning I announced that, in this financial year alone, we're putting in $26 million extra to ensure we're providing critical emergency capabilities, especially in relation to bushfires, so that we can get greater capabilities out of the big jets and so we can increase the warning programs and the communications devices that are there to assist people in the middle of critical bushfires. We know that, as we go into this bushfire season, it will be one of the most difficult and one of the most hazardous for the Australian population. When you run a strong economy, you can pay for the things that Australians rely on. You can give them that absolute guarantee that a strong economy delivers. Rural and Regional Services 12623 14:07 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how a strong economy enables investment in the services that regional Australians rely on and how a weaker economy, through higher taxes, would put this investment at risk? 14:07 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Hinkler for his question. He is as alert as usual, unlike those opposite. Those opposite are completely moribund and completely unaware of what's going on. Next year, the Liberal-National government are delivering a surplus. Right here, on this spot, on 2 April, watch the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, deliver a budget surplus. How good will that be? It is the kind of surplus budget that those opposite could only dream about. They are very envious; they are very green about this. The member for Melbourne is just green all the time! Those opposite have their policies that are trying to appease Greens voters in the cities. Meanwhile, we're getting on with the job of building a better Australia to make sure that we can produce budget surpluses. This means that we can deliver the essential services that Australians rely on, such as the historic regional deal for Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. This is transformative; this is deserved. This regional deal is going to be sensational for Bundaberg and the Fraser Coast region. The member for Hinkler has fought hard for this and, as usual, he has delivered. He fought hard, and he delivered. Like the existing city deals, this regional deal will bring together all three tiers of government: local, state and federal. They will be coming together to make sure that we get the sorts of regional services that Australians deserve and expect. It's a unique opportunity to get those three tiers of government together. This deal will attract new businesses. This deal will create jobs. I know the member for Hinkler is passionate about creating job opportunities in his electorate, just like we all are on this side of the House. That's why we've helped small and medium enterprises to create more than a million jobs in five years. You heard the Prime Minister, a little while ago, talking about the 100,000 jobs for young people in the last financial year. Jobs, like the million jobs that we have created, are helping Hinkler and are helping Central Queensland and North Queensland. Indeed, those jobs are helping in all of Queensland. There are jobs in construction, thanks to our $10 billion investment in the Bruce Highway. There are jobs in tourism. We've supported that through the Regional Growth Fund and through the Bundaberg Brewed Drinks superbrewery. The Liberals and Nationals have Hinkler's back. We have the back of Queensland. The mayor of the Fraser Coast Regional Council, George Seymour, is fully on board with it. You should listen to this. He says, 'The Fraser Coast Regional Council is grateful for the opportunity provided by the regional deal and excited about what this will mean for the opportunity.' He knows, just like the member for Hinkler, it's going to create jobs and it's going to create opportunities and it will mean a better, stronger and improved Bundaberg-Hervey Bay region. But none of this is possible without a strong economy, without good management and without making the decisions that regional people need to deliver the services and infrastructure that they deserve. All Labor stands for is five new taxes: on your income, on your business, on your property, on your savings and, we all know, on your electricity bill. That's all Labor stands for—higher taxes and fewer jobs. (Time expired) Energy 12624 14:10 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Business Council of Australia, which today said about the government's discredited forced divestment policy: It is surprising to see this legislation proposed by a Liberal Government. This is the kind of intrusive, heavy-handed intervention into the market you would expect from the Greens. Further, they said that 'bad policy created this mess, and ill-conceived and rushed policy' won't achieve what is desperately needed: lower electricity bills for families and businesses. 14:11 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Labor Party spend most of their time saying that we are the champions of big businesses. I'll tell you who is sitting in bed with big businesses that want to rip off Australian customers on their electricity prices: the Labor Party. That's who it is. I agree with the Business Council on this matter though—when the Business Council of Australia said that the emissions target of 26 per cent is appropriate and achievable, but a 45 per cent emissions reduction target is an economy-wrecking target. That is what the Labor Party are proposing. So, not only do they want to cuddle up to the big energy companies and not take the sides of customers, like the Liberal Party and the National Party are doing, they also want to hit customers with what is effectively a 45 per cent electricity tax, which will put up electricity prices for mums and dads and for small businesses and pensioners and older Australians. That's the Labor Party's view. The member for Barker reminded us this week that when Robert Menzies said that we stand up for the forgotten people, that didn't mean forgotten energy company executives; it meant mums and dads and people paying electricity bills. That's who we're fighting for. In the Liberal and National parties, we're fighting for small businesses who are out there working hard. We're fighting for family businesses. We're fighting for people who go out there and earn a wage and pay tax. We're fighting for people who haven't got the time to go out there and be advocates all the time and be political activists. That is the party of the Labor Party and the Greens and the Left. They want to fill the airwaves with economy-wrecking policies, but what we're doing on this side is standing up for Australians who work hard and are sick of paying too much for their electricity bills. We're prepared to take on the big energy companies; the Labor Party has folded. Energy 12625 14:13 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Minister for Energy. Young people across Australia, and again today here in our parliament, are demanding your government take action on climate change and listen to the world's climate scientists. But, instead, you're proposing to use public money to underwrite and indemnify coal-fired power stations, which could leave taxpayers exposed to huge liabilities. Minister, to the nearest billion dollars, what is the potential exposure of the taxpayer if, over summer, you underwrite coal-fired power stations or indemnify them against future carbon risk? Will you now drop your fiscally irresponsible crusade to prop up coal-fired power stations, or will you leave it to this power-sharing parliament to pass my bill to prevent your economic recklessness? 14:14 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for his question. We are seeing, over the next 2½ years, an investment of $15 billion committed to new generation in the electricity sector. That will see a 250 per cent increase in the solar and wind in our sector, from nine per cent of generation up to 23 per cent of generation in the next 2½ years. Whilst ensuring that we will get emissions below 26 per cent by the early 2020s, the challenge this creates is we need to have enough dispatchable 24/7 power in the system to keep the lights on and keep prices down. That's why we are underwriting new generation, new supply, to make sure those prices come down. We are also taking on the big energy companies. And we're doing that because we have seen dodgy practices, we have seen manipulation and we have seen price gouging from those in the energy sector that are more interested in the bottom line than the interests of customers. Those opposite have a big decision to make: whose side do they sit on? Do they sit on the side of the hardworking small businesses and families of Australia— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. The member for Melbourne on a point of order? Mr Bandt M3C On relevance: my question was about the level of exposure, and if he doesn't know that—if he doesn't know whether emissions are going up or down—he should just say so. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members can cease interjecting The minister will resume his seat—I haven't called you; I need to rule on the point of order raised by the member for Melbourne. His question had a long preamble and at least three questions in it, so it's not in order to raise a point of order and seek that the minister answer one single part of it. If the member for Melbourne wants the minister to be contained in his answer to a specific area, he needs to make sure that the question is specific to that point. Mr TAYLOR 231027 The real question here is: which side of the table do those opposite sit on? Do they sit on the side of the hardworking small businesses and families of Australia, or do they sit on the side of the big energy companies? We on this side sit with those hardworking small businesses and families across Australia. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 12625 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:17 The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call the member for Fairfax—if the member for Hunter could contain himself for a second—I'd like to inform the House we have joining us in the front row of the gallery this afternoon the winners of the My First Speech competition that the department of the House runs. We'd like to extend a very warm welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 12626 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 12626 14:18 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question goes to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how a strong economy allows the government to deliver services and a lower cost of living for all Australians, including those in my electorate of Fairfax? How would a weaker economy, through higher taxes, put these outcomes at risk? 14:18 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Fairfax for his question, because he is committed, like we are on this side of the House, to growing the economy, to creating more jobs, and to bringing the budget back to surplus without increasing taxes. That is what we have done in creating new jobs and growing the economy, and next year we'll bring the budget back into surplus. That's good news for more than 21,000 small businesses across the electorate of Fairfax. What we won't do is slug the hardworking people of Fairfax—like the more than 8,000 people in his electorate and more than a quarter of a million across Queensland who use negative gearing—with a new tax. What we won't do is slug the more than 7,000 people in his electorate of Fairfax who currently are getting the benefits of franking credits—like the Labor Party will with their retirees tax. Today's national accounts saw the Australian economy continue to perform strongly: 2.8 per cent GDP growth sees Australia's economy growing faster than the OECD average and growing faster than any G7 country except the United States. We've seen our AAA credit rating reaffirmed, we've seen unemployment come down to five per cent and we've seen more than a million new jobs being created. We recently saw the wage price index increase by 2.3 per cent, which is the biggest jump in three years. And the Reserve Bank governor has said they'll continue to see a pick-up in wages growth and that this will be a welcome development. The benefit of a strong economy is the record spending on health and education that is occurring on our watch. Opposite, they want to tax you from the cradle to the grave, and the most pernicious of taxes is the retirees tax. In the member for McMahon's electorate, around 3,000 people will be affected, like Senca, who said that she and her husband have worked for 30 years: 'We've saved, we've scrimped, we've sacrificed to be self-sufficient financially and not be a burden on the welfare system.' They cannot believe what Labor is doing and what is now being proposed by their own shadow Treasurer. Alan, in the Labor electorate of Richmond, will lose over $2½ thousand a year or $50 a week. Alan wrote to the shadow Treasurer and said of his response, 'It was offensive and deliberately misleading.' That is what a constituent in the electorate of Richmond said. Jack from the electorate of Jagajaga said he works in a working-class suburb, his wife is a nurse, he was a draftsman and he will stand to lose significantly under Labor's policy. On this side of the House, we will grow the economy, we'll create new jobs and we'll lower taxes—a stark contrast to those opposite. (Time expired) Energy 12626 14:21 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm reports this morning that the member for Curtin told the government that its discredited forced divestment policy threatened investment, could be regarded as sovereign risk and was inconsistent with Liberal values? 14:22 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I can confirm to the member for McMahon that we on this side of the House have introduced legislation today to reduce people's power prices, because we are on the side of the Australian consumer, the families and the small businesses. As the member for McMahon knows, the ACCC has identified significant problems in the energy market, which they say is unsustainable and can't continue in its current form. Those problems are in the retail market, where retailers don't pass onto consumers the full benefit of reductions in their own costs. There are problems in the contract market; we're seeing it particularly in South Australia—illiquidity in the contract market, where new retailers can't come into the market because of a barrier to entry because they can't get the hedges and swaps in the financial contracts that they need. We see it in the wholesale market as well, where big generators have sometimes held back supply in order to send prices up. We say to the member for McMahon: what's wrong with calling out that misconduct? What's wrong with putting in place penalties which range from infringement notices and higher fines to, in the case of the wholesale market, divestment on the recommendation of the ACCC to the Treasurer and a referral by the Treasurer on to the Federal Court of Australia? I say to the member for McMahon: what is wrong with Australia having a policy of divestment, as the United States and the United Kingdom do? What's so different? I'll tell you what's different: the Labor Party have a set of tax policies and an industrial relations policy which is big-time antibusiness. They are looking for a cover to cosy up with the energy companies to obscure the failures of their own policies. I can tell the House that we in the Liberal and National parties are committed to lowering people's power bills. We've seen prices come down from July this year in Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales, and we will take whatever action is needed, including introducing this bill in the House today, to ensure that the people of Australia, all 25 million of them, get a better deal from the energy companies. National Security 12627 14:24 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General update the House on the steps that the government is taking to strengthen national security and protect Australians? Is the Attorney-General aware of any alternative approaches? 14:24 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for his question. As the member is well aware, the Prime Minister made it an absolute priority this week to reach agreement on the encryption assistance legislation and have that legislation moved through the House. That will, by agreement, ultimately be a milestone achievement for this government and to the enormous benefit of the people who it will protect. You asked about alternative versions of this legislation. Two issues came to be large sticking points towards the end of the negotiations. One was whether or not you should keep in or remove state and territory police forces and the other was how narrowly or how broadly you might characterise the offences that would allow these very important powers to be used. Fortunately, the bill that will ultimately pass the parliament this week will include state and territory police forces and have a sufficiently broad range of offences that allow these powers to be used. This is an opportunity to inform the House as to why these two ultimate determinations, which this government stood fast on, are utterly critical. Unfortunately, it's the case that terrorism and other related offences do not occur in isolation. We've seen previous examples like Khaled Sharrouf, who was a terrorist but before that dealt in drugs and committed drug offences. We've seen examples such as Omar Succarieh, who was arrested on terrorism charges in Brisbane in 2014, was subsequently convicted of those charges and has also been convicted of extortion. These very serious offences often act in composite, and they converge on each other. Investigating the broader series of offences, at both a Commonwealth and a state level, helps us to put more serious criminals in jail and helps us detect, uncover and prosecute terrorism. Had the offences been cast too broadly—as was advocated by members opposite—and left only to terrorism and child sex offences, the types of things that we would not have assistance in detecting, investigating and prosecuting would have been things like drug offences, money laundering, bribery and corruption, fraud, criminal organisations, murder and cybercrime. These, with the bill that will go through this parliament, will now be able to be investigated with the assistance of the encryption assistance legislation. There have been a number of notable examples of the types of offences that have been very substantially hampered in their investigation. I will just briefly raise two. In August 2017, the AFP, with the assistance of authorities in Dubai and the Netherlands, arrested 17 people and seized over 1.9 tonnes of MDMA, cocaine and ice. That investigation, whilst ultimately successful, was severely hampered by the use of encryption technology. In 2017, the AFP uncovered 30 kilograms of heroin going into Fiji and 600 kilograms of cocaine going into Haiti. Again, encryption was at the heart of that. (Time expired) Energy 12628 14:27 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the now Independent member for Chisholm that the government's discredited forced divestment policy is: … totally counter to liberal values of free enterprise and small government— and: It will be a deterrent for future investment and won't lower electricity prices but will actually have the reverse effect. 14:28 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Liberal Party members in this chamber want to see electricity prices come down. We're going to side with the customers who have been paying too much and have been taken advantage of by big electricity companies. That's what our bill is designed to achieve. That's why we're taking action. It's because we want to stand by the families, small businesses and family businesses of Australia who are paying too much. The Treasurer posed a question before: why would the Labor Party not want there to be a power to take action against price gouging and the sorts of conduct that would be anticompetitive and that could lead to an increase in prices, which flows through to end consumers? Why would you be opposed to a power that would help even up the score for mums, dads and pensioners? We're not confused about that. We're quite certain about it. We know who we stand for; we stand for mums and dads and small and family businesses who are looking for a better deal from energy companies. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Port Adelaide, on a point of order? Mr Butler HWK We are one minute in, and the Prime Minister still hasn't mentioned the member for Chisholm. The SPEAKER 00APG What's the point of order? Mr Butler HWK I ask the Prime Minister to be directly relevant. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister has concluded his answer. Economy 12629 14:29 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Women and Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations. Will the minister update the House on how a strong economy enables the government to provide support for women in family and small business to succeed? How would a weaker economy, through higher taxes, put this support at risk? 14:30 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for Robertson for her question, and she, like every member on this side of the chamber, understands how vital it is that we support small and family-sized businesses, because they employ more than seven million Australians. She understands that a third of all small business operators are, in fact, women. We want to see even more women get into small and family-sized businesses, so we are supporting them to be able to do just that. We know that when women do well their families do well and our economy and our nation prosper. That is why we delivered the Women's Economic Security Statement. It is the very first time that any government has delivered an economic security statement helping women to be able to build their financial security. It is exactly why we are helping women who are running small and family-sized businesses with changes to our parental leave payment. We are changing it so that it is a lot more flexible, because we know that the current system is far too rigid. We know that there are many small and family-sized business operators that simply cannot spend 18 weeks away from their business, so we've done something about it. We've heard from people like Tess McCabe, a small business owner, who spoke to The Sydney Morning Herald. She said that she was so pleased when she heard the news about the government's announcement that she cried. She said: It was exactly what self employed people want, the choice to take those blocks of paid parental leave … in a way that suits them. That is what we are about. We are about giving people flexibility and choice. We are not about raising their taxes, which is exactly what those opposite would do. For somebody like Tess McCabe, who has a small or family business, we're doing the opposite. We're cutting her taxes, because anybody who has a business with a turnover of less than $50 million, under our government, has seen the company tax rate go down from 30c in the dollar to 25c in the dollar with our legislated plan—because, unlike those opposite, we know how to manage a budget. We know it is important that you don't raise taxes on people's businesses, on their investments, on their retirement savings, on their homes and on their superannuation. That doesn't help small and family-sized businesses. It certainly doesn't help them when you've got retirees being slugged with a mega retiree tax. We know that the $200 billion worth of new or increased taxes that those opposite would impose would hurt small and family-sized businesses. We want to help them, not hurt them, which is why we say: don't vote Labor. Energy 12630 14:33 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that according to today's media reports energy companies, business groups and even government members are warning that the Prime Minister's discredited forced divestment policy sets a dangerous precedent that would threaten investment across the economy? Does the Prime Minister agree? 14:33 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook No, I don't. I don't support that. What the ACCC Retail electricity pricing inquiry final report found—I initiated that report as Treasurer—was that we have been taking action on electricity prices. We haven't been doing things to force them up, as the Labor Party would do. They found that retailers were taking advantage of confused and disengaged customers. They found competition being restricted through dominant players choosing not to offer financial contracts and conduct which undermines the effective operation of the wholesale market. That's the misconduct, and they are the practices, which they found. The member opposite says, 'What did they say about divestment?' That's a very good point. The ACCC did not recommend divestment. They recommended that, if you did everything you possibly could, it wouldn't be necessary. But those options aren't available, and our government has taken the decision—it was also taken under the previous Prime Minister—that we would introduce divestment powers to ensure that big electricity companies did not take advantage of Australian consumers. It's pretty simple: you are either with the top end of town over there on big electricity companies, or you're standing with the government, who wants to put in place and even up the national laws to ensure that those big electricity companies cannot play the market and cannot play mums and dads who are paying too much for their electricity. I know why Labor probably don't want to support this measure. It's because they're for higher electricity prices. How do I know that? Because they have a 45 per cent emissions reduction target, which will drive up prices. They like higher prices. When they were in government they drove up prices. They doubled, despite the fact that, I understand, they gave a billion dollars to brown coal generation. All the energy generators had to do for those opposite when they were in government was send them their bank account details. So I'm not going to take lectures from the Labor Party, who have only one agenda—to punish mums and dads and pensioners and small businesses with higher electricity prices as they cuddle up to the big energy companies. Defence Industry 12630 14:36 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on how a strong economy enables government to embark on record spending in defence, creating a sovereign defence capability? How would a weaker economy, through higher taxes, put this investment at risk? 14:36 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Fisher for his question. The member for Fisher is a great advocate for the defence industry in his electorate, particularly a company called HeliMods, which gets a great deal of attention from the member for Fisher. He is also using the heft of the government spending on defence to help grow the economy in Fisher, his electorate on the Sunshine Coast, and he should be commended for it. Because we are running a surplus budget, because we are building a strong economy, we can invest in the essential services and priorities that the Australian public regard as important without increasing taxes. That is in stark contrast to the Labor Party, who think that you can only increase spending and keep increasing taxes. What this government has done—and this year in particular has been a very busy year for defence and defence industry—what we have done is increase spending in defence, building our military capability, the largest in our peace time history, without increasing taxes. We're using that heft to drive our defence industry boom in this country. I welcome the Minister for Defence Industry to the chamber. He's doing an absolutely sensational job— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will pause for a second. Members on my left: you're not going to continue to interject, okay? If you think you've made a joke once, don't make it 10 times. Let's move on. Mr PYNE 9V5 Under the Minister for Defence Industry we wrote $3 billion worth of export permits in the September quarter, one of the highest ever. Applications for defence export permits jumped by 25 per cent in the June quarter. Labor think it's all very funny, but those people who have their jobs in the defence industry, and the servicemen and women of Australia who serve in our Defence Force, who put on the uniform, don't think it's very funny. They think it's amazing that they're getting the equipment and the platforms they need to win in theatres of war, keeping them safe and bringing them home. We don't think it's funny on this side of the House. We see it as a tremendous opportunity to drive a defence industry. This year we have begun construction on the Offshore Patrol Vessels. We've handed over the first of the Pacific Patrol Boats to Papua New Guinea. We've begun construction of the Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle factory in Brisbane in the last month—it was opened by the Minister for Defence Industry, in fact. In June this year we began the construction of the Osborne South Shipyard. We will soon turn a sod on the Osborne North submarine yard. We are investing in shipbuilding in a way that Labor could only dream about. In fact, Labor cut spending on defence by 17.9 per cent in real terms, putting our service men and women at risk. Energy 12631 14:40 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The Courier Mail reports that the Morrison government is threatening Queenslanders with the forced privatisation of their state-owned power assets, with the energy minister saying they are on notice. Why does the Prime Minister support the privatisation of power assets, which leads to higher power prices? Why is he threatening Queenslanders with more privatisation and higher power prices? 14:40 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Well, as is his habit, the Leader of the Labor Party is just not telling the truth. One truth he can point to, though, is that the Queensland electricity industry is owned by the Queensland government. As the Queensland government have been dividend-stripping out of the Queensland electricity industry to prop up their financial mismanagement, you know who's been paying for it? Queenslanders. Why are power prices higher in Queensland for Queenslanders? Why have they been paying higher prices? Because the Queensland government are gouging them. They are the ones who are responsible, who are overseeing the increases in power prices in Queensland. Because the Queensland Labor government don't know how to manage money, what they've been doing is jacking up power prices to strip that money away from mums and dads, pensioners, small businesses and family businesses. So, if the Leader of the Labor Party wants to come into this House and talk about the ownership of electricity assets in Queensland, he must take responsibility as the Leader of the Labor Party for having a partnership with a Queensland Labor government that are happy to rip off electricity customers and put the money into their own failed budgets. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 12632 14:42 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how a strong economy enables the government to subsidise new treatments for Australian patients living with leukaemia, like Fiona in Seaford in my electorate of Dunkley? How would a weaker economy, through higher taxes, put these subsidies at risk? 14:42 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Dunkley, who has been a great advocate for patients such as Fiona. Fiona has been battling chronic myeloid leukaemia. She has been supported under the PBS with medicines that would otherwise cost over $60,000 a year. We heard yesterday that he's also been a great advocate for patients such as Ally Clarke—and Spinraza. She has been supported under the PBS with her spinal muscular atrophy battle, with extraordinary steps forward. Also, the member for Dunkley has been advocating for patients right across the spectrum in relation to new medicines. On Friday, I was fortunate to meet with Geoff Carson, who is a 70-year-old former engineer, having worked with the CSIRO for over 30 years. He's been battling acute myeloid leukaemia. It is a condition that can have catastrophic impacts. It's a cancer of the blood and of the bone marrow. In particular, he has been given early access to Rydapt, a medicine we have now made available, as of Saturday, under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This medicine will help 200 patients, and it is potentially life saving or life changing. It's a medicine that goes to the very heart of what this parliament aspires to achieve through a strong economy, through compassion and through action, all being brought together. The PBS in that respect represents the very best of what this parliament can achieve when we put the country in a position where it's able to pay for those actions. In particular, Geoff was excited and delighted that other patients would have access to that which is helping him with his journey and his battle and his life. Whether it is pancreatic cancer or neuroendocrine tumours, which are also supported with other medicines, these are the types of things which we are able to support. I am pleased, proud and determined about the fact that this government has made the commitment that, if the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommends it, we will list the medicines that they bring forward. That is our commitment. We know, though, that it can only be done with a strong economy. We know that that has not always been the case, sadly. In 2011— The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, in terms of your role, with the dignity of the House, I want to draw attention to this answer. If it goes to the point of claiming that only one side of politics is concerned about people with leukaemia and only one side would make decisions in favour of leukaemia drugs—and it has happened before—I am giving the minister a chance to not go there. Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce is warned. To the Manager of Opposition Business: I understand the point he is seeking to make, but I'm here to judge things. I understand he is trying to be helpful from his point of view, but we can't have a situation where people rise to the dispatch box because they are worried about something they think might be said. Mr HUNT 00AMV That is not a claim I would make. This is a matter that matters to everybody. But the important thing is these things can only ever be achieved when a country is in a position to fund, to support, to commit and to pay for these most important medicines. That's what we say proudly we've done and we will continue to do. Energy 12633 14:46 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer. Doesn't his answer mean that his government is seeking the power to privatise electricity assets in Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia, and Snowy Hydro? If it doesn't, what exactly does divestiture mean for publicly owned electricity assets? 14:47 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I refer the Leader of the Labor Party to the statement issued by the Treasurer and the Minister for Energy, where it says very plainly on the second page: The legislation will apply to government owned enterprises. In such cases any divestiture may be made to another government owned energy company where the two entities genuinely compete with one another. It has nothing to do with privatisation. But, given he asked in relation to my previous answer and I made reference to the Queensland government retail electricity companies, he may be interested to know that Queensland government owned electricity retailers made $1.9 billion in profits in 2017, up 45 per cent on 2016. Talk about putting your hands in the pockets of hardworking Australians, with government-driven higher electricity prices out of the Queensland Labor government. The hide of Labor! Their cousins up there in Queensland in the state government are smacking Queensland retail customers in the electricity market around the head on a daily basis. The Labor Party should be joining us in standing up to anyone who would want to gouge Australians and do the wrong things by Australians. I remember it was the same thing from the Labor Party when it came to dealing with section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act, when our government stood up for small business to level the playing field to ensure that small businesses got a fair go. You know who voted against them? The Labor Party. It reminded me of when our government stood up and said, 'We're going to make multinationals pay their fair share of tax.' You know who voted against that? The Labor Party voted against that. On this side, we're happy to stand up to anyone who wants to play the Australian people for mugs, and that includes the Leader of the Labor Party. Science 12634 14:49 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan My question's to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister please update the House on how a stronger economy enables the government to support science and technology industries? And, Minister, how would a weaker economy, through higher taxes, put this investment at risk? 14:49 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for Ryan for her question. CSIRO has two sites in the electorate of Ryan, undertaking a wide range of research in a number of areas, including in hydrogen energy, agriculture, robotics and automation. And she, like all those on this side of the House, values the unique science and technology capabilities of Australia. We've demonstrated our commitment to science and technology, and we can support science, because the Liberal-Nationals government has built a strong economy. In the budget this year we invested $2.4 billion in Australia's research, science and technology capability. As part of that we invested $1.9 billion in long-term research infrastructure, and we did that because we talked to the sector, we listened to the sector and we understood what their needs are in terms of surety of long-term research infrastructure. We invested $41 million to establish the Australian Space Agency, and projections are that the agency will triple the size of the sector and add another $12 billion to our economy by 2030. It will also create an additional 20,000 new jobs. We invested $4.5 million to improve gender equity in science, technology, engineering and maths. Let me remind the House that the Liberal-Nationals government has invested $1.5 billion more in science agencies than Labor did. This includes $97 million more for CSIRO, $126 million more for ANSTO and $53 million more for the Australian Institute of Marine Science. But not only do the Liberal-Nationals government value Australia's science sector; we value the relationship between science and business, particularly with small and medium enterprises. That's why in October I released the Statement of Principles for Australian Innovation Precincts. Those principles were developed in conjunction with a number of our key stakeholders, including universities and including state and territory governments. Those will establish some very good principles for innovation precincts, and we know that innovation precincts are important to growing Australia's economy. ANSTO, one of our leading agencies, has established a new innovation precinct, and that will connect Australian industry with some of our nation's best and brightest scientists and engineers. That will drive our innovation capability, it will drive our employment and it will ensure our economic growth into the future. (Time expired) Banking and Financial Services 12634 14:53 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. The Assistant Treasurer is responsible for financial services, including the big banks. Since he became Assistant Treasurer, how many victims of financial misconduct has he met with? Or does the Assistant Treasurer only share his ministerial assessments with LNP donors? And will he now cancel his attendance at the event advertised for 19 December? The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister on a point of order—or the Leader of the House? Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, it's the same point of order that I made yesterday. The minister is not responsible for the banks; that is the responsibility of the Treasurer— Ms O'Neil 140590 He's the minister for financial services. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hotham is warned. I've made very clear that I'm going to hear points of order without interruption. She's lucky she's still in the chamber to hear the answer, if there is one. Mr Pyne 9V5 He's also not responsible for the royal commission; the Treasurer is responsible for that as well. So, in the same way that the question yesterday was out of order, I think the question today is out of order. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW The Assistant Treasurer is responsible for financial services, which certainly do affect the banks. The question as to whether he's been meeting the victims and who he meets with is, I would suggest, entirely in order for any minister to be asked—whether they've met with particular people. And the question goes to different categories of those people. It starts with victims of misconduct and then asks about LNP donors—whether he meets with those—and then asks about his diary and a future event that he's been advertised as attending. The SPEAKER 00APG Let's start at the end and work backwards. The Manager of Opposition Business won't be surprised to know that the last part of the question is completely out of order. Asking ministers things that aren't their responsibility, whether they're attending a fundraiser or going through their diary, is completely out of order. I made that point yesterday, and I'm not going to allow questions to wilfully keep restating it so that I then have to make exactly the same ruling. That is completely out of order. When it comes to the part about whether he has met with bank victims from the royal commission, he's not responsible for the royal commission. The only part of the question that may well be in order is the part about his responsibilities as Assistant Treasurer with respect to financial services, but even in that case I make the point that as the Assistant Treasurer he's not the primary minister—that, in fact, is the Treasurer, who has overall responsibility. If someone wants to tell me I'm wrong on any of that, I'm happy to hear— An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG One point I'm very certain of from all the time I have been in this place is that assistant treasurers are subordinate to treasurers—sorry, Assistant Treasurer, but they are. Yes, Manager of Opposition Business? Mr Burke DYW There's only one thing to clarify. The question was framed specifically about victims of financial misconduct, not with reference to the royal commission. The SPEAKER 00APG There's so much of it that's out of order that I'm going to rule it out of order and allow you a chance to redraft it. Energy 12636 14:56 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong My question is to the Minister for Energy. Will the minister update the House on how a strong economy ensures the government can take action to lower power prices, including for those in my electorate of Bennelong? How would a weaker economy, through higher taxes, put this action at risk? 14:57 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. He knows that this government has a balanced and sensible policy for affordable 24/7 reliable power for Australian families and small businesses, including in his electorate of Bennelong. During a recent visit to Bennelong I met with a number of businesses, including Fletcher Building. Fletcher Building are a building products manufacturing company, which employ over 5,500 people. They know that high energy prices restrict investment and growth. That's why we're driving electricity prices down—so that businesses like Fletcher Building can employ more Australians, building on the more than one million jobs that have been created in the time that we've been in government. Our plan for lower power prices is already delivering results. We have said time and time again that the big energy companies must put their customers first. Thanks to pressure from this government, half a million Australian families and small businesses will benefit from lower prices from 1 January. AGL, EnergyAustralia, Origin and Alinta, along with other retailers, are cutting prices for customers by up to 15 per cent. On average, those customers in New South Wales will be $200 better off; in Victoria, $313; in South Australia, $270; and, in South-East Queensland, more than $175. Prices are coming down, but for too long the big energy companies have focused on their profits and not their customers. That's why this government is introducing its big-stick legislation to parliament, which will hold big energy companies to account. Our reforms will crack down on dodgy practices, on price gouging and on loyalty taxes. We on this side of the House remember that the Hazelwood power station closed in March 2017. The ACCC found that, in response to that, AGL increased bids from $30 a megawatt hour to over $60 a megawatt hour or higher and Origin increased bids by up to $150 a megawatt hour. This is a test for Labor: support our legislation and stop the exploitation of hardworking Australians, who are paying too much for this essential service, or oppose it and continue to side with the big energy companies. We know which side we're on—we're on the side of those hardworking small businesses and Australian families who want a better deal from their energy company. Assistant Treasurer 12636 15:00 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Today's media report that the Assistant Treasurer is announcing a review of the ability of health supplement companies to label their products as made in Australia. Given that the Assistant Treasurer has a financial interest in a health supplements company named RQ Supplements, how can the minister claim that he's meeting his obligations under the ministerial standards to avoid conflicts between his private financial interests and his ministerial responsibilities? Has the minister learnt nothing from the last time he was a minister? 15:00 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I thank the member for his question. The first thing I'll say is that policy responsibility for all things in the Australian Made Campaign resides with the minister for industry, not with me as the Assistant Treasurer. Secondly, I have put all of my assets in blind trusts— Ms O'Neil interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hotham will leave under 94(a). I want to listen to the Assistant Treasurer without interjections. The member for Hotham then left the chamber . Mr ROBERT HWT I'll reiterate: firstly, the industry minister has policy responsibility for the Australian Made Campaign and all issues dealing with that particular matter. Secondly, my pecuniary interests are all updated and have all been blind-trusted, so I have no responsibility for assets in that regard. Mayo Electorate: South Eastern Freeway 12637 15:01 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. For several years my electorate has been promised an upgrade to the South Eastern Freeway between the towns of Crafers and Stirling. As you know, this is a federal road. In particular there was a promise to extend the slip lane on the freeway exits that connect the two towns to create an effective third lane. This stretch regularly sees crashes due to the short ramps. I've met with the state Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Stephan Knoll, on the matter, and the minister also recognises the importance of the upgrade. When will these promised upgrades be completed? 15:02 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Mayo for her interest in the South Eastern Freeway between the towns of Crafers and Stirling, acknowledging that they're important towns in her electorate. We have a role and responsibility to help build productivity for people in those towns, and they want to get home sooner and safer just like all South Australians— Mr Hill interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 If it's boring for you, it's certainly not boring for the member for Mayo's residents. It is irresponsible of you. There are people in Australia who want to know about our infrastructure— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce will leave under 94(a). The member for Bruce then left the chamber. Mr McCORMACK 219646 We are building, we are creating, we are delivering. We understand the importance of getting people home sooner and safer. The South Australian government is currently finalising the scope of this project that the member for Mayo asks about. Once it's concluded, project time frames will be available and we can get on with the job and build it, because that's what we do. The Morrison and Marshall governments, working in tandem with each other, get on with the job and build things. With increasing demand on commuter and freight traffic, the South Eastern Freeway between Crafers and Stirling has been affected by increased traffic at peak periods. We acknowledge that there are congestion and safety issues. That's why we want to get on with the job of doing those sorts of things not only in the member for Mayo's electorate but also in all electorates right around the nation. Crafers has a population of 2,000 and Stirling's population, in the Adelaide Hills, is about 3,000. They want things to be built, and we're getting on with the job of doing just that. The South Eastern Freeway is the most direct corridor between Adelaide and Melbourne, as well as providing a vital link in moving freight between eastern and central Australia. We acknowledge that the freight task is going to double over the next 20 years. Mayo is an important part in that freight task. I know the member has raised the matter, as you mentioned, with Stephan Knoll, who's the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government and the Minister for Planning. He is a good minister. It's an important issue and an important project. I acknowledge that, and I know Minister Knoll acknowledges that as well. The planning is important. It's critical. Working with the Marshall state government, we expect to see this project commence and also be completed in 2019. That's next year. That's because we get things done. I tell you what does threaten those sorts of things: it's if a Labor government gets in, because there are going to be a lot of things that they are going to rip up—just like the Andrews government when they ripped up a billion dollars worth of East West Link money. That's what they did. That's what Labor does. They just rip contracts up with not a metre of bitumen being laid. That's all they're good for. Defence Industry 12638 15:06 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister update the House on how a strong economy enables the government to create jobs and opportunities for small and medium enterprises in the defence industry through exports? How would a weaker economy, through higher taxes, put this action at risk? 15:06 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I thank the member for Bonner for his question. I can see members of the Labor Party getting a bit excited, no doubt looking for some inspiration on defence policy. You can understand why. Labor's track record on defence industry policy, from the last time Labor was in power, is pretty average. Those on this side know that we've commenced and actually commissioned 55 vessels. When Labor were in government for six years, how many do you think they commissioned? Fifty-five? Fifty? Forty? Thirty? Labor's track record was zero vessels commissioned. I want to speak about the member for Bonner and, in particular, the way in which the coalition, the Liberal-National government, are backing in Australia's small to medium businesses around defence industry. The fact is that the member for Bonner has in his electorate a business called Ferra Engineering. It's just one example of how Australian defence industry is benefiting from this government's investment in the Defence Export Strategy and defence industry more generally. In fact, Ferra Engineering in his electorate has now won about one-tenth of all of the Australian contracts in the global F-35 program. It's through the support of the Liberal-National government that businesses like Ferra Engineering have been able to grow, invest with certainty and create more Australian jobs. We are making it easier, and we're determined and resolute to make sure that Australian companies can access global supply chains so they can grow their businesses and grow employment. That's why we created the Defence Export Facility to give Australian businesses access to export finance to ensure they're more competitive. It's also the reason why we put in place the Defence Export Strategy, which is delivering results. As the Minister for Defence said, at $3.2 billion, Australian defence exports in just the last quarter were higher than the previous two years combined. That doesn't happen by accident. That's a result of deliberate policy design. It's about government backing in, through taxpayer funds, the support that industry needs. It's very different to Labor's approach. The shadow minister for defence spoke recently at an event where he was asked what Labor's policy is when it comes to defence industry. He said: I'm not really sure … It's a profound and deep decision the nation needs to make and we haven't made it. In other words, with six months to go, the Australian Labor Party don't even have a policy on defence industry. For the 25,000 Australians that are employed in the defence industry space, for those who are relying on the fact that the Liberal-National government commissioned 55 vessels, and for those who remember Labor's track record of reducing spending down to a measly 1.56 per cent of GDP, they know that Labor will be— (Time expired) Assistant Treasurer 12639 15:09 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Assistant Treasurer attended an LNP event with the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, an independent statutory officer? Was that appropriate and in keeping with the statement of ministerial standards? 15:10 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'm happy to take the question on notice and report back to the parliament. Schools 12639 15:10 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister update the House on how a strong economy enables the government to deliver record school funding for Australian students, parents and teachers? How would a weaker economy, through higher taxes, put this action at risk? 15:11 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. He understands how important it is that we invest in schools. I'm pleased to inform him and the House that the government is providing record levels of funding for Australian schools. Commonwealth funding for state schools was $6.8 billion last year. It will be $7.3 billion this year, it will be $7.9 billion next year and it will be $8.6 billion the year after—going up and up and up. Commonwealth funding for Catholic schools was $6.3 billion last year. It will be $6.6 billion this year, it will be $6.9 billion next year and it will be $7.3 billion the year after that—going up and up and up. Commonwealth funding for independent schools was $4.4 billion last year. It will be $4.7 billion this year, it will be $5.1 billion next year and it will be $5.5 billion the year after—going up and up and up. From 2017 to 2027, Commonwealth funding to state schools will grow by 86 per cent. This is very important, and I'm sure the House will be very interested in this: according to the Productivity Commission, since 2006, on a per student basis, Commonwealth funding to state schools has increased by 78.5 per cent. This is compared to a 7.7 per cent increase in the contribution from state and territory governments. We are doing our bit when it comes to funding state schools. All up, the government is providing nearly $310 billion between 2018 and 2029 to all schools. How are we able to do this? We're able to do this because we have created a strong economy, with 1.1 million jobs created since we came to office. There are two important things that that does. It increases tax receipts so we can make sure we can pay for it. The second part is that it means our welfare payments are less. As a matter of fact, our welfare payments are at their lowest levels in the last 30 years. That is what we've been able to achieve. What would put this at risk? Those opposite. What they want to do is hit the Australian economy with $200 billion worth of taxes. What would that do to the Australian economy? That would stifle the Australian economy, that would suffocate the Australian economy, that would lessen economic growth, and it would mean you couldn't pay for record investment like this. (Time expired) Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 12640 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 14 of 2018-19 12640 15:14 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 14 of 2018-19 entitled Joint Strike Fighter—Introduction into service and sustainment planning: Department of Defence. Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018. DOCUMENTS 12640 DOCUMENTS Presentation 12640 15:14 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. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 12640 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Energy 12640 15:14 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's irresponsible forced divestiture energy policy. I call upon all those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:14 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon We all know that the dysfunction and chaos at the heart of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government comes with a very big cost, and we saw that cost, at least in part, in the national accounts, the economic growth figures, today. Economic growth is down, household consumption is slow and household savings are at a 10-year low. We saw that lack of confidence, that concern about the uncertainty at the heart of our government, reflected in the figures today. But we also see it when it comes to the energy policy—or perhaps, more accurately, the lack of an energy policy—that we have from this government. This is a government which has proven itself to be pathologically incapable of providing our country with an energy policy. It is just not up to the job of providing the country with the framework necessary to invest in energy generation. This is a government that wasn't able to adopt its own Chief Scientist's recommendation for a clean energy target. The whole party fell apart at the very thought. Then they weren't able to adopt the National Energy Guarantee, which we were told was vital to putting downward pressure on prices. It didn't fall as a result of the operation of this parliament. It fell as a result of the operation of that party room. It fell under its own weight. Now we have the fig leaf for a policy, and I use the term 'policy' very lightly—the fig leaf, the alibi for an energy policy which is the big stick: the divestment policy. I never thought I'd see the day where a supposedly free-enterprise government would concoct such a preposterous idea, which, they assert, will put downward pressure on prices, when, in fact, it will put upward pressure on prices because it will chill investment. We know the Prime Minister's happy to make all sorts of claims. I was taken by one he made last week. He took to Twitter. He's had a very patchy track record on social media since he became Prime Minister, the poor old Prime Minister. But he said this—and let's just break down this tweet, this Prime Ministerial statement on Twitter: We're bringing electricity prices down. Our big stick legislation is pressuring energy companies to give Australian families better prices. And it's working. Here's the problem with the Prime Ministerial boast: the divestment policy had not, at that point, even been introduced to parliament, let alone been implemented and been working. It has changed dramatically from the time he made that statement. It was rewritten overnight by the Treasury because it had again imploded under the weight of the Liberal and National parties, and it is not putting downward pressure on prices. What we know is that wholesale power prices have doubled under this government. Under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, wholesale power prices have doubled. Also, in futures pricing, we're seeing that the market has worked out what's going to happen next. The market knows what's going to happen next, and the market is pricing in a further 40 per cent increase, when prices have already doubled under this government. What have they got? What has this minister got? He's got a poor, weak excuse for a policy. He's got a small and weak policy, not a big stick, and it has fallen apart. It has failed a few tests. There is the small matter of whether it's constitutional or not. I've got a pretty low bar and a pretty high tolerance when it comes to policies from this government because I've seen all manner of mistakes, but the first test for a Prime Minister and a minister is to check whether their policy is constitutional. Maybe check and see whether it complies with the vibe. That would be a good start. But we've seen constitutional experts point out—and their case seems pretty logical—that it would fail under a High Court challenge. That's a pretty big problem for a government. Then, of course, we've got the problem that it has fallen apart at the hands of those who sit behind the minister. I'm going to do something you won't hear me do every day in this House: I'm going to pay a compliment to some of those opposite, because the other policies have fallen under the weight of the climate change deniers on the other side. The clean energy target and National Energy Guarantee fell under the weight of those who do not accept the climate science, those who said the government shouldn't have an electricity policy—the intellectual giants like the member for Hughes and others on the other side who claim that climate change isn't real or isn't caused by human activity and that therefore they shouldn't have a policy. They're the ones who've killed the first policy. This policy has been killed by those honourable members opposite who actually have some understanding of economics and who actually have some understanding of the principle that if you create more uncertainty, and if you create an environment of instability, you will get less investment and not more. They're the ones who've killed this policy, who've rolled the minister and rolled the Treasurer. They're the ones who said, 'We're not having any part of this policy.' Yet again we see the dysfunction at the heart of this government, meaning that the country rolls on without an energy policy. We know that what we need is more investment, not less. What we need is a policy which actually encourages people to invest in energy generation. What we need is a policy which actually provides people and investors with the certainty to know that their environment is stable and that there won't be sudden changes to government policy. With this government you don't know if there's going to be a sudden change of Prime Minister or not, and you also don't know if there's going to be a sudden change in policy. We could accept the policy if we thought that it would put downward pressure on prices. But expert after expert in the industry, and beyond the industry, have said that it would put upward pressure on prices. This is a minister who is about to get to the despatch box and accuse us of being too close to big business. That's what he's going to do. A few weeks ago in an MPI this minister would have been arguing that we should give billions of dollars worth of corporate tax cuts to the very same energy companies. He's about to launch an attack on them. He's about to say, 'The problem with Labor Party is that they're far too pro-business.' He's going to say that's the problem with the Labor Party: 'Those terrible socialists over there have been listening to business too much again.' That's what he's going to say. I'm going to say: 'Listen to the minister. It's going to be a cracker, because this bloke has said all over the country that the Labor Party is too close to big business.' I'll tell you who we're close to: Australian consumers. And I'll tell you who we'll stand up for: Australian consumers, who should have a government putting downward pressure on prices, not upward pressure. We'll stand up for consumers who want an energy policy which actually embraces the future. I'll tell you what: I know who'll give Australia an energy policy. A Shorten Labor government will give Australia an energy policy. Only a Shorten Labor government will double the investment in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. That's what we'll do. We'll provide an additional $10 billion in capital for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Only a Shorten Labor government will create an independent energy security and modernisation fund, because we're not afraid of modernisation. We don't shy away from modernisation; we embrace it. We don't pretend it's not happening, like the economic vandals who sit opposite. We embrace it. Only a Labor government will implement a new energy productivity agenda. Only a Labor government will provide grants for Australian manufacturers to help them reduce their energy usage. I'll tell you what: only a Shorten Labor government will assist households doing it tough to install batteries to reduce their power prices going forward. They laugh; they don't like batteries. They don't like the future. Now we're too much on the side of Australian consumers, according to those opposite. Only a Shorten Labor government can do these things. We're not going to engage in this crazy Venezuelan-style intervention. I have considered apologising to the government of Venezuela for the terrible insult of comparing them to this unstable government, but I think the comparison stands. What we will have is rational policy with stability of personnel and stability of policy. We'll provide that stability through good leadership and through stable leadership. We've had five years of leadership on this side and the revolving door of Prime Ministers and ministers on that side. What we'll provide is policy certainty for business and for consumers. What we'll stand for is good policy in the interests of consumers. We don't need a slogan like 'big stick'. What a pathetic little slogan you have. What a pathetic little slogan this government has. The government of Australia is reduced to this pathetic slogan. I thought three-word slogans were bad enough, but now we've got two-word slogans put on this policy. That's what this pathetic government has been reduced to. Australia deserves better than that. Australian consumers deserve better than that. Australian consumers deserve a government that actually believes in something. I say this: at least Malcolm Turnbull had some beliefs he could betray. At least he had something to betray. This Prime Minister and this Treasurer don't have any beliefs to betray in the first place. This minister makes his bosses look good, that's what he does, because he's not up to the job and he's got a pathetic excuse of an alibi for a policy. 15:24 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume What an extraordinary display we have just seen. At the beginning of question time we heard the Leader of the Opposition railing about the growth of profits in the economy—back to his old Marxist roots—and then, minutes later, he was standing there defending energy companies who were delivering record profits at the expense of hardworking Australians—small businesses and families. He was standing there defending the Queensland government that last year took over $2 billion out of the pockets of Queenslanders—hardworking Queenslanders like the team I met a couple of weeks ago from FLIT Fitness, who saw their electricity bill per quarter go from $500 to $2,000. That's $1,500 being taken out each quarter and going straight into the coffers of the Queensland government, which means that profits are okay if they're in the hands of the Queensland government. They like them being in the hands of the Queensland government, because the Queensland government has broken its budget, and the people of Queensland are paying for it. We stand for a sensible, balanced policy and for reliable, affordable electricity—electricity that works 24/7, not like your pink batteries, which go for an hour in a 12-hour night, but sensible, affordable, reliable power that works 24/7. We do stand for lower electricity prices, and we're seeing exactly that, with our price safety net, with the reductions we have seen, under pressure from the government, from energy companies across the board. Half a million Australian families and small businesses will see a better deal, even if they don't have time to get on the phone each year to negotiate a better price. Those households on standing offers will see a better deal in New South Wales of, on average, $200 a year; in Victoria, $313; in South Australia, $270; and in South-East Queensland, from the retailers—but the Queensland government's not contributing to this—$175. As well as that we have introduced to the parliament today our big-stick legislation, and we've done it because there has been price gouging. We want to stop market manipulation. There have been dodgy practices, to use the words of one of the chief executives of the big energy companies. He described the practices that have occurred in the industry as 'dodgy'. We've seen these sorts of practices in the retail market, in the wholesale market and in the contract market, and this is an essential part of our package, our policies to reduce electricity prices. When did reducing electricity prices become not a policy? How can the Labor Party think that that is not central to any sensible policy? I'll tell you why. The Labor Environment Action Network told us why. They think that rising prices are an illustration of the market working well. Those opposite are in favour of higher electricity prices. In fact, the last time they were in government they did exactly that: they drove higher electricity prices. We know that in addition to ensuring that vulnerable customers get a fair deal, ensuring that the big energy companies are held to account, we need to make sure that there is enough reliable, 24/7, supply in the system to keep prices down and to keep the lights on. We'll have a shortlist of projects in the new year—dispatchable, reliable, 24/7 power that can balance the record level of investment in solar and wind that's happening right now: $15 billion of investment. It needs to be balanced with capacity firming, with storage—with the sort of capacity that can deliver 24/7 power to make our aluminium smelters work properly, to make sure that our steel mills can work, to make sure that our abattoirs can work and to make sure that every Australian knows that when they flick the light switch the lights will go on. In contrast, unfortunately, tragically, there was what we saw under a Labor government in South Australia. When South Australians flicked the switch, nothing happened. Yet they still, at the end of the quarter, were getting the highest electricity bills in the world. That was because of reckless policies from a Labor government that doesn't understand that you have to have 24/7, reliable power to keep prices down and keep the lights on. It is about balance; it's about balance across all fuel sources. On top of those initiatives I've already described, we're progressing reliability obligations through COAG. This means that, years ahead of time, the retailers will need to invest in that 24/7 power that is going to keep the lights on and is going to keep prices down. They will be held to account, and that's what this is all about. We need an industry that focuses on its customers and that focuses on a fair deal for all Australians, something that the Labor Party no longer understands at all. The real question right now in this place is: which side will the Labor Party sit on? Will it sit on the side of those hardworking small businesses and families across Australia, or will it sit on the side of the big energy companies' executives? Whose side will it sit on? We sit on the side of those hardworking families and small businesses. Those opposite are very happy with the profits of the big three electricity companies rising from $1.4 billion in 2014-15 to $2.6 billion this year, and that doesn't even include the Queensland government ripping $2 billion out of the hands of its customers in the last year alone. The bill that we have introduced to the parliament today will hold energy companies to account across each of the crucial markets for electricity. In the retail market, we know retailers deliberately confuse customers with their discounting strategy, often using what the ACCC has called excessively high benchmarks and complex offer structures. That needs to change. We need to see that, when wholesale prices go down, so too do retail prices. We need to make sure that, when retail prices are set, they are set in a fair way without a loyalty tax. The ACCC has described these practices and said: Electricity retailers' discounting practices are a deliberate tactic to give the impression that an offer is significantly cheaper than other offers in the market when this is often not the case. This behaviour is confusing, at times misleading, and leads to poor consumer outcomes. Retail prices need to follow wholesale prices. That's built into the legislation. In the wholesale market, a lack of competition has resulted in higher prices. The ACCC said: … lack of competitive pressure is of concern to the ACCC, particularly given the critical need for a sufficient level of competition … It said: In each NEM region the current combined market shares of the three most significant generators is close to or in excess of 70 per cent on the capacity measure, and over 80 per cent on the dispatched energy measure. That's with only three players, and those opposite are defending them. Those opposite used to believe in competition policy. They have a competition lawyer on their front bench. Isn't she explaining to you that this is a problem? Hasn't she explained to you that asset divestiture is applied across the board, across the whole economy, in the US under the Sherman act and in the UK under their Enterprise Act? What we are doing is targeting. It's energy specific, it's time limited and it requires a court order. I'm sure your competition law adviser can explain to you that it is measured, it is proportionate and it is appropriate for a market where 80 per cent of the market is held by three players. In the contract market, a lack of liquidity acts as a barrier to entry, where the dominant position of gentailers can make it harder or impossible to enter the market. In South Australia, if you are an independent retailer and if you're an independent generator, getting into the market is nigh on impossible. It is tied up. The ACCC puts it well when it says: In certain regions of the NEM, particularly South Australia, the level of liquidity and the advantages enjoyed by vertically integrated retailers make it difficult for new entrants and smaller retailers to compete effectively in the retail market. We are acting on this, because we stand on the side of those hardworking Australians who want a better deal with their electricity prices. We are dead against a 45 per cent emissions reduction target that those opposite support. They want higher electricity prices, because they want to make sure that Australians buy less electricity. They want to make sure that Australians don't get a fair deal. We are for a fair deal. 15:35 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide What a shambles energy policy is under this government. We've been trying to keep count but we're pretty confident that we're now up to double digits in the number of energy policies this government has had since the last election in 2016. We had the emissions intensity scheme and the Clean Energy Target. We lost count of the number of versions of the National Energy Guarantee. My colleague the member for Charlton says there were four versions of the National Energy Guarantee in the final 14 days of Malcolm Turnbull's prime ministership before he was defenestrated—four in 14 days. This week we've had two energy policies. It's 20 to four on Wednesday, so I'm not ruling out the possibility that there will be a third, at least, this week if the coalition party room ever meets to consider this. But this current policy has to take the cake. This is a Venezuelan-style neo-Marxist state intervention into an energy market, which this Liberal Party privatised. The experiment in privatising an essential service was not driven by the Labor Party. We opposed it every step of the way. This experiment in privatisation is now apparently an evil to be confronted by this Venezuelan-style state intervention. My colleague the shadow Treasurer has talked about that quite a deal. But, of course, there is a second element to the policy of this new minister, this novice minister, and that is to throw billions and billions of taxpayer funds at building new coal-fired power stations, for which no investor other than Clive Palmer in Australia has indicated the slightest interest in cooperating. The Australian Industry Group—not Greenpeace, not the Labor Party, not anyone else—has estimated that this minister's plan to indemnify a new coal-fired power station—just one coal-fired power station—against future carbon risk could cost taxpayers $17 billion. We know that those opposite have a plan to build significantly more than one coal-fired power station. We read in The Australian newspaper, from government sources, they were planning to build a new coal-fired power station in my electorate of Port Adelaide on the Lefevre Peninsula. So, times $17 billion by several new coal-fired power stations and you are starting to talk real money that the taxpayers are lumping up to satisfy the ideological obsessions of this government. It's not just the absolutely shambolic process of policy development under this government over the last few years; the substance of this bill is even worse. We heard the Prime Minister quote, rather selectively, I might say, from a recent report from the ACCC, the consumer watchdog—the statutory body with responsibility for looking after the interests of consumers—after its two-year inquiry into the operation of the electricity market. He didn't quote this particular part, when the ACCC dealt with the possibility of a divestiture mechanism in the electricity industry. What the ACCC said, after lengthy and exhaustive consideration of this possibility, is: Requiring the divestiture of privately owned assets is an extreme measure to take in any market, including the electricity market. … … … … the ACCC does not believe it would be appropriate to intervene to unwind the way in which the market has evolved across the National Electricity Market. It was not something that the Prime Minister saw fit to quote in question time when he was selectively using the authority of the statutory consumer watchdog, the ACCC. You would think, if the consumer watchdog, empowered by this parliament to look after the interests of electricity consumers, thought that divestiture would help them, would lower power prices, perhaps they would have included it in their 56 recommendations about what to do with this electricity market, and they didn't. Indeed, after the report was delivered and when this government first announced their so-called 'big stick', the ACCC chairman, Rod Sims, was giving evidence to a Senate estimates hearing and he confirmed: I think I can confidently say Senator I found out about it when everybody else did, when I read about it— the divestiture idea— in the newspaper. He confirmed in those hearings that he hadn't even been asked by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, or the energy minister about the conclusions he came to in his report on the operation of the electricity inquiry. Such is the disdain this government has for good policymaking process, the idea of evidence based policy, informed by the views of experts like the ACCC or even by Ian Harper's earlier national competition policy review, which also considered and rejected the idea of divestiture. Other business groups—not the energy companies; of course, they oppose it—representing those that use energy oppose this because it is bad policy. 15:40 Mr IRONS HYM Swan Today's MPI is a clear example of just how out of touch the opposition really are when it comes to matters concerning everyday working Australians. Mr Butler HWK You privatised the WA assets. Mr IRONS HYM I am glad you raise the WA stuff, because I'm about to give you some real facts. You talked about WA, the youngest Labor government in Australia, and how they treat electricity, cost of living and household pressures. Labor need to take a good long hard look at themselves and decide whether they sit on the side of the big energy company executives or the side of the customers, hardworking families and small businesses. The government is taking a proactive role in stopping the price-gouging by energy companies with our big stick legislation. Mr Husic 91219 Yay! Mr IRONS HYM I hear the cheers of encouragement from the other side. Over 458,000 Australian families and 39,000 small businesses are getting a better deal on their energy prices thanks to the pressure from the Morrison government on the big energy companies. The energy companies have been responsible for some shady practices: price-gouging and loyalty taxes, to name a few. There is an urgent need for culture change in those companies and in that industry, and it requires strong legislation. Origin Energy, Alinta, AGL, Energy Australia, Next Business Energy, WindConnect and Powershop are lowering standing offers on 1 January 2019. If we're up-front about the Australian energy market, we know that they haven't been serving their consumers well. The ACCC has pointed a finger at the energy companies, saying retailers have played a major role in poor outcomes for consumers, but the Labor Party has also played a role in poor outcomes for the consumers. As I said before, we heard the member for Port Adelaide yell out something about Western Australia, and this is a perfect example of how Labor do energy policies. You have to watch what they do, not what they say. An article by Brendon O'Neill on 13 March 2017 says: The Labor party staunchly opposed Colin Barnett's proposal to sell Western Power – the distribution network spanning most of the state outside the South West. While the Liberals, Nationals and ACCC advocated that privatising could reduce power bills as much as 51%, Labor warned the sale would lead to higher prices as well as lower maintenance and service standards since electricity distribution is not a competitive industry. With McGowan's convincing victory in the election, Western Power will remain in public hands. That's not exactly true, because, whatever happened, another article, written by Paul Murray, 'Opinion: Labor and anti-privatisation McGowan Government are saying one thing and doing another', says: Despite outrage at the idea of selling Western Power, it appears Labor has just sold part of Synergy. After their faux outrage at selling Western Power, they've now sold off part of Synergy. They've all gone quiet. This is how Labor run their electricity and energy policy. They just put prices up. That's all they do. An article by Daniel Mercer in The West Australian,'WA households could be hit by 15% rise in electricity prices', says: WA households could be hit with flat electricity price increases of more than 15 per cent over the next three years as the State Government shores up power provider Synergy's financial position. Don't worry about the consumers; worry about the energy company! The article continues: After consumers were stung with an 11 per cent increase in power bills this year, Energy Minister Ben Wyatt signalled the Government was aiming to repeat the dose in coming years. Mr Wyatt told a Budget estimates hearing into Synergy that the forecast improvement in the power supplier's bottom line for this financial year was largely because of the decision to impose the price increase on "fixed" charges. For residential customers, this is the supply charge and is separate from consumption charges. You'll be gobsmacked: after they came into government, within a month this supply charge 'was increased to 98.9c a day from 48.6c last year—an increase of $169 a year' for every WA consumer. Mr Gorman interjecting— Mr IRONS HYM I see the member for Perth in here applauding the fact that consumers have to pay an extra $169 a year. The article continues: A typical household power bill is $1722 a year, according to Treasury. With assumed price increases in the State Budget of 7 per cent, 5.6 per cent and 3.5 per cent between 2018-19 and 2020-21, Mr Wyatt said "there is probably still more to come" … So all WA consumers should just listen to Ben Wyatt: there are still more power price increases to come in Western Australia. This is what Labor do. Don't watch what they say; watch what they do. 15:45 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin This coalition policy of forced divestment is a stinker for all of the reasons the members for McMahon and Port Adelaide raised a few moments ago, and we heard about it in question time as well. We know it will reduce investment and we know it will push up prices as a consequence. But there has been a new revelation which has been confirmed by the energy minister himself which could see the forced privatisation in my home state of Queensland—or Western Australia, Tasmania or other places around Australia—of public energy assets. This is a dangerous and disastrous policy which has been plucked directly from the Liberals' dumpster fire of internal division and energy policy dysfunction. What this policy ignores is that the people of Queensland, the people of the finest state in the Commonwealth, have repeatedly told governments that they don't want these public assets sold. By ignoring them, those opposite are poking Queenslanders in the eye with the big stick. Instead of a big stick, we are going to have a garage sale of public assets despite the fact that Queenslanders have made their views repeatedly known, over and over again. The Minister for Energy in Queensland, Dr Anthony Lynham, a great guy, has written repeatedly to the Treasurer to seek clarification. Maybe that clarification has come today; I hope it has. He has sought repeatedly to work out what is going on here with this forced divestment policy and its impact on forced privatisations. In an article in The Courier Mail today by Renee Viellaris, the energy minister confirms that one of the consequences of their discredited policy could be forced privatisation of energy assets in Queensland. When you read the article, you notice a couple of things. The first thing you notice—the reason the member for Mackellar has gone quiet—is that it says the members for Mackellar, Hughes and Curtin and other members have gone to the ministers and said, 'This policy's done.' They've said it's done for a whole range of reasons. But the other conspicuous thing you notice in this article is that none of the members who said the policy is done is a Queenslander. In fact, when you look through the list, all the Queenslanders have gone missing, as they always do. And then it says that Queensland LNP MPs Keith Pitt, the member for Hinkler—who is also here—and George Christensen, the member for Dawson, gave spirited endorsements of the laws. Not only have they failed to listen to Queenslanders; they've given a spirited endorsement of a policy which could see the forced privatisation of Queensland's energy assets. Mr Conroy 249127 Turkeys voting for Christmas! Dr CHALMERS 37998 As the member for Shortland says, it's like turkeys voting for Christmas. Also, when the energy minister was going back and forth today saying prices would go up and down and investment would go up and down—he didn't really know what he was doing—that was a broader symbol of what's going on in energy policy when it comes to the government. Since this policy was announced, it was watered down a little bit yesterday. We had the Prime Minister put out a clarifying statement after the energy minister's confirmation about forced privatisations. There are all kinds of back and forth, all kinds of watering-down and weakening, and trying to pretend that they've got control of this key economic policy area. But I think the people of Queensland and the people of Australia know better. They know that this is a function, a symptom, of the deep divisions and dysfunctions on that side of the parliament not just on energy policy but right across the board. It's long past time for the Queensland members and senators to go to the relevant ministers—like the member for Mackellar and the member for Curtin have done—and tell them it's past time for them to stand up and say: 'We've stuffed it up; we've got this policy horribly wrong. We don't want to see forced privatisation in Queensland or other parts of Australia. We got it wrong.' It's time to come to the table and talk about a real energy policy like the one the member for Port Adelaide and the Leader of the Opposition have announced, which builds on the National Energy Guarantee and some other important initiatives which will boost renewables and get prices down when it comes to power in our economy and in our community. We've seen it before. When it comes to energy, there is generally a stirring defence of a policy, and then a humiliating backflip. It's time that we had that on this ridiculous forced divestment policy, for all the reasons raised by the member for McMahon and the member for Port Adelaide, and also because the Queensland people don't want your privatisation of public energy assets. 15:50 Mr GEE 261393 Calare This MPI debate has made it very clear where we all stand in this House on this issue. On this side of the House, we stand for consumers— Mr Buchholz interjecting— Mr GEE 261393 Yes, we do. We stand for the consumers. On that side of the House, they stand with the big power companies on this issue. Everyone on this side of the House has been contacted by families who are doing it tough, struggling to make ends meet because of these skyrocketing power prices. They've had enough of it. We all know the stories of the pensioners who have contacted our offices and said: 'We are struggling to keep the heaters on in the wintertime, because we just can't cope with these sky-high power prices.' Something has to be done. The families, the pensioners and the businesspeople have been crying out for bold and decisive action—and this is what has been delivered with this new policy. All around us on this side of the chamber we've heard stories of the small businesses who have contacted our offices—for example, Appledale fruit processers in Orange. They are a community-run co-op, run by the processors, and their power bill has been going up by tens of thousands of dollars every year. They just can't keep going with these sky-high power prices. Those on that side of the House think that small businesses, medium-sized businesses and even the bigger businesses are just going to keep on going forever and a day, producing the prosperity, wealth and opportunity that this country was built on. But it's not like that. We can't take them for granted. We can't just keep hammering them and hammering them with ever-increasing taxes and ever-increasing prices, which those on that side of the House advocate for through their opposition to this policy. If we want regional economies to grow, and if we want regional communities to prosper, then we need to be doing something about these power prices—because sky-high power prices are a regional jobs killer. I've been to enterprises in our part of the world where they've told me that they won't be able to continue. There's a commercial laundry in Blayney that I visited. They employ 25 people in a small country town. They rang the alarm bells early and said something needs to be done about these skyrocketing power prices and gas prices. If that business closes, 25 people in a small country town lose their jobs. It's not easy— Mr Hartsuyker 00AMM And they don't care. Mr GEE 261393 They don't care on that side of the House, as the member next to me attests to. They just don't care—because they are standing with the big end of town and the big power companies, who have been price-gouging consumers for far too long. Everyone out there knows what's been happening. Everyone out there in the real Australia knows that this has been going on—because they've been copping the bills. This whole power argument which the coalition are seeking to prosecute is just a continuation of the Canberra bubble and a continuation of this introspective, political-class debate that is going on on the opposition benches. What is wrong with the principle that, if power companies get a discount on their wholesale price for electricity, that should be passed on to consumers? What is so terribly wrong about that? What is so hard to grasp about a concept like that? We stand with the consumers. If the power companies are getting discounts and price reductions on the wholesale price of electricity, that should be passed on to consumers. It's a very simple thing. Government members interjecting— Mr GEE 261393 That's exactly right, as my colleagues here point out: that's what this legislation does. We are standing up for those most vulnerable people in our communities, unlike those opposite, who are not only seeking to impose higher power prices on people in our communities like pensioners but also have that great new retiree tax which they're seeking to slug retirees with! It's a double whammy. In the electorate of Calare, there are 6,500 retirees who are affected by Labor's retiree tax. You've got to explain yourselves, through your candidates, to these electorates as to why you are doing that to the most vulnerable people in our society, in our communities around Australia. You're hitting them with a retiree tax and you are hitting them with higher power prices. It is not sustainable. That's why the government has brought in this legislation. If you're not going to play by the rules, if you're going to engage in anticompetitive conduct, then why shouldn't you run the risk of being broken up if you're a price-gouging power company? We are standing with consumers on this, and we will do it proudly and we will do it right through to the next election. We will fight for consumers. (Time expired) 15:55 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Sitting here through this MPI, I'm no clearer as to why the Liberals and the Nationals are being so ridiculous when it comes to energy policy. They talk about consumers as though consumers are not voters. They're the same people. Over and over again, the voters throughout Australia have tried to teach them a lesson about where they stand on the privatisation of their energy assets. The member for Rankin mentioned what happened in Queensland. Do I have to remind those opposite again that there was a massive victory to Labor when they tried to privatise the energy network under Campbell Newman? Do we have to remind them about what happened in WA? There was a similar result in the election. What happened way back when Jeff Kennett was the Premier of Victoria and he privatised the industry there? There was a victory to Labor, and Labor has been in government ever since. In my part of the world in Victoria, Jacinta Allan has been the state member since 1999 and she's now, on primaries, winning that seat. It all goes back to the fact that what this mob opposite cannot get out of their system is how addicted they are to privatising public assets. On this new position, this clause they've put forward, in all their contributions they've sidestepped and not really addressed the fact that what they're trying to do is force states to privatise their assets. It's a new low and a level of ridiculousness by the government to suggest that they're going to start dictating to states like Queensland and Tasmania, where, again, the voters recently reminded them what they think of their ideas and their tough approach towards these states. But it's not just the states that are up in arms about what the government are putting forward in terms of this policy. The government have also managed to upset the business community—their natural constituency. Jennifer Westacott has come out and said: The principle that governments can misuse their power to break up companies sets a dangerous precedent that will deter investment across the economy. This will do nothing to solve high power prices for families and businesses struggling to pay their bills today. When you've got your own criticising you, you'd think you'd take a step back. But, no, they haven't. It doesn't stop there. You've got the Australian Industry Group having a go. You've got the energy companies themselves having a go. You've got small businesses and families having a go. The fact is that energy prices are higher today than they've ever been before because of this government and its failure. It has been in government now for five years and it has failed. When you go to any manufacturer in regional Australia, they tell you that they are price-takers. They've got a lack of ability to negotiate contracts. Some of them are stuck on month-to-month contracts with their energy companies because this government has failed. Its inability to set long-term policy, the chops and changes it has had, has caused this problem. They stand here now with another new policy, one that is so radical that it will actually cause real damage in states like Queensland. If they force the state of Queensland to sell their assets, they can't even tell us which other state enterprise they can sell their assets to. Do they set up Energy Queensland 2? Do they sell it to another state? Do they sell it to the federal government? This policy is so poorly designed and so done to try and appease people on their own backbench that they can't answer the most basic of questions. It should be withdrawn. It should be withdrawn, and the government should take seriously what Labor has put forward. They've tried to criticise the policy that Labor's put forward, which would help consumers with battery storage. How could you do that? It is not only a popular policy; it makes sense to households. They've got solar panels on the roof; we're going to help them with the next step of putting batteries in their homes to store energy. We know that this kind of technology is already changing what is happening in a lot of our agricultural industries. Where farmers have the ability to have onsite storage, they are able to lower their energy bills. When they have the ability to go off grid, their farming enterprises are turning around, and good on them for doing that. Good on them for going off grid and being able to power themselves. People want to be more engaged in power. They want to see a power-sharing grid. What they don't want is the way this government is treating energy policy, particularly by turning around to the states and saying, 'Do it our way or divest.' (Time expired) 16:00 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Firstly, can I go to the contribution for the member for Rankin. The member for Rankin is clearly a little bit under the weather, so we'll give him leeway. I hope you feel better soon, Jim. I say to the member for Rankin: he knows a good scare campaign when he sees one. There was a very clear media statement today from the Treasurer and the Minister for Energy saying very clearly that if the divestiture powers are used in an area like Queensland, where the Queensland government owns everything—70 per cent of the generators and all of the poles and wires; there is only one retailer in regional Queensland, and it is owned by the Queensland Labor government—they can split into other government owned corporations. As someone who has lived in Queensland for the overwhelming majority of my life, I can say that was exactly how it was. The Far North Queensland Electricity Board, the Wide Bay-Burnett Electricity Board and all of the other boards were separate. They had their own maintenance crews, they did their own billing and they competed with one another for work. And what did the Queensland Labor government do? They put them altogether and they centralised all of their services, to the detriment of our people. We are here for consumers. We are not here for governments, and we are not here for big business. Let's look at why this legislation is necessary. The answer to that is very, very simple. Energy companies, particularly the big gentailers and people like the Queensland Labor government, are robbing billions of dollars from consumers for one reason: because they can. They are profiting from the pockets of people who cannot afford to pay, and they are predominantly our people. On this side of the House we are standing with consumers. The divestiture laws, if activated, are good legislation. They are strong decisions that send a very clear message to those people who are robbing consumers right across the country. Now let's look at who recommended it. This is not something that fell out of the sky. This is the ACCC. The ACCC made recommendations around divestiture. They made recommendations about ensuring that we get continuity and reliability of supply. The Minister for Energy, Angus Taylor, is working on that right now. For those on the other side who want a 50 per cent renewable target, here is your opportunity. Get in and tender with everybody else. Compete with everyone else that will put forward generation capacity for this country and, if you are cheaper and if you can meet reliability standards, I'm pretty confident you'll get a go. You will be able to get out there and deliver what you want. That big science experiment in South Australia under the previous Labor government for 50 per cent renewables resulted in two things: first, the most expensive electricity in the world; and, second, an incredibly unreliable system that relies on the electricity cord to Victoria. I'm happy to compare my resume with anyone on that side of the House, if we want to talk about power systems and energy—no problems at all. There are some very complicated technical issues around the design of our network and how it works. That includes systems security and stability, without which the lights will go off. So it is not just an ideological debate. This is an incredibly technical area that we need to get right. Right now, the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Labor government have hooked some $2.2 billion from Queensland consumers. They made them borrow $5 billion to try to prop up their budget a couple of years ago, because they are simply terrible economic managers. On this side of the House we will implement the tough laws that are necessary, because they are necessary. If we look at the big three, they have had an increase in profits of over a billion dollars in the last three to four years. Every single business I know would like to have that sort of increase in their profit margin. I say again: they are doing this because they can. They are profiting from people who cannot afford to pay. What will be the result? If those opposite are successful in the next election and they implement their power policies, I can tell you right now what will happen: we will lose the aluminium industry. We will lose the last remaining foundries in this country. We will lose those businesses that are very highly dependent on the cost of energy, and they are usually people who would support those opposite. That is where they garner their members. They are members of the ETU. They are members of the AWU and the metal workers union. People on the opposite side of the House are not supporting those who would typically support them. They cannot be trusted with the national economy and definitely not with energy. 16:05 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I admire the member for Hinkler's passion and I admire his commitment to operating in a fact-free zone, which the last five minutes demonstrated. I'll begin where he finished, which was with the cost of power and what the cheapest form of new generation in this country is. If I'm given a choice between relying on the rantings of the member for New England or on the Australian Energy Market Operator, I'll rely on the Australian Energy Market Operator, who has stated unequivocally that the cheapest and most reliable form of new power in this country is renewable energy backed up by pumped storage and gas. Don't take my word for it; don't take the word of environmental groups for it; take the word of the Australian Energy Market Operator, who said that renewable energy, firmed up with pumped hydro, is the cheapest replacement for the eight coal-fired power stations we're going to see retire in the next 15 to 20 years. That's the fundamental issue. We've got a lot of coal-fired power stations that have done great service to the nation and are retiring. They must retire; they are falling apart as we speak. If you want cheap power, reliable power and cleaner power, renewable energy is the answer. That's what the Australian Energy Market Operator has stated unequivocally, and that's why Labor has called for the NEG, and it's why Labor has agreed with the vast majority of stakeholders who've said the NEG is the answer. So, while the member for Hinkler and the coalition stand with Alan Jones and the tinfoil-hat-wearing brigade over there who refute climate change, we stand with the Energy Council and AIG. We stand, ironically, with ACCI, BCA, BlueScope, the Energy Users Association, APPEA, the Clean Energy Council, Energy Networks Australia, the Smart Energy Council, Solar Citizens, the ACTU, the former Prime Minister Mr Turnbull and the current member for Curtin. They've said that the NEG is the right energy policy. For all the crocodile tears over there about protecting consumers, the great tragedy is that they have been the architects of skyrocketing electricity prices because they haven't had stable climate and energy policy over the last 5½ years. In fact, in a 14-day period in August, would you believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the government had four different energy policies? Not in five years, not in three years, not in three months but in 14 days they had four different energy policies. Mr Giles 243609 Pretty agile. Mr CONROY 249127 It's very agile, as the member for Scullin comments. Who paid the price for this policy agility? It was households and businesses, because, in the two months after they junked the NEG, when the climate change deniers had their little revolt over former Prime Minister Turnbull, wholesale energy prices rose by 122 per cent and future prices rose by 20 per cent because they junked the NEG, opened up another abyss and came up with this incredibly stupid divestiture policy. It is a policy that will increase energy prices, a policy that will increase policy uncertainty, a policy that will hurt households, businesses, workers and the entire nation, and they can't even get that right, because they faced a little minirevolt from the member for Curtin, and that led to headlines today like 'PM retreats on energy "big stick"'. We had another one that said 'Libs' abject surrender'. Even when they come up with an incredibly stupid and short-sighted policy, they can't stick to it for more than a month or two at a time. So the big stick, as has been commented upon, is now a little toothpick, but it's a little toothpick that has dire consequences for the energy sector. We heard today, for example, that the way it has been clumsily constructed could lead to forced privatisation in Queensland and potentially in Western Australia as well. If those opposite want to fight an election on forcing the states to privatise their power companies, I'm very happy to fight that. Ultimately, we'll stand on the side of the consumers and say no to more privatisation and no to more power price increases, which their policies have driven. Unfortunately, I don't expect it actually to be taken to the election. We have another five or six months before that, so I'm expecting at least four or five energy policies from the government before we get to 18 May. We will see what comes out of this. The member for Grey is up next, and he will come up with the novel scare campaign about South Australia and everything else. For once, I urge them to actually listen to the experts rather than the naysayers on climate change. 16:10 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey When it comes to South Australian electricity supplies, I think I am more probably more expert than the member for Shortland, having lived through the procedure, having dealt with Alinta through that closure period and having met with the AEMO in 2012 to express my concerns about what the removal of Alinta's Northern Power Station would mean to South Australia. It doesn't give me any great thrill to say I told you so, but I did tell this House, on a number of occasions, exactly what I thought would happen. I have proven to be remarkably perceptive in that area, I must say. This MPI this afternoon targets irresponsible divestiture policies. I might point out that it is a little puzzling that the two biggest economies by GDP in the world are the US and the EU, which both utilise divestiture policies. It does not seem to be holding them back all that tremendously badly. They are rarely used, and why is that? It's because, when companies and investors understand what the rules are, they fashion themselves in advance to set up their business arrangements so that they don't saturate any particular market. It was Paul Keating who knew this. Paul Keating knew about it well. In 1990, he actually instigated the current policy of the four pillars of Australian banking, which is still standing. It was to stop one of the other banks taking over and reducing the four pillars to three pillars, if you like, and then the three pillars to two pillars. Keating knew that you had to have a level of competition to achieve the best result. Notwithstanding the current banking inquiry and things that may not be as they should be in that area, Keating certainly understood the issue of competition. The thing is that if you want competition then the undeniable fact is that you need competitors. In the case where you have two or three power suppliers, it's almost impossible for a new player to get a start in the market. Government policies are very focused on enabling new players to get into the market across a range of issues, including being prepared to underwrite new investment in this area to smaller players. These small players should not be frozen out and intimidated by monopolies, duopolies or even triopolies. They need the chance to establish their business. To go back to the South Australian issue: I was involved on a regular basis with Alinta. It must be understood that the proliferation of renewable energy in South Australia actually undermined the business case for a base-load generator. Basically, we had a power station that used to be able to sell electricity for a profit for 365 days a year and then 300, then 200, then 100 and then less than 100. It was to the point where it couldn't sell electricity on a profit for enough days for it to survive. They went begging to the South Australian government and to Jay Weatherill for a lifeline. They said, 'We could keep this power station open for another three or four years,' when in fact it had a projected 15-year life, for an $8 million a year consideration. Premier Weatherill rejected that. That decision alone will cost South Australia billions of dollars over the period of the decade from that power station's closure. It's because of that that our electricity is the most expensive in the world. It's what happens when you get blanket policy—blunt policy, if you like—applying across the whole nation. The South Australian government chased investment in renewable energy down relentlessly and led to this situation where the unreliable energy, if you like, chased the reliable supplier out of the market. On that day when Alinta as a generator departed from South Australia, we were left with two—maybe two and a bit—major suppliers of electricity. That is just not a comfortable marketplace. It is not a way to generate competition. The government was faced with this situation and it had to act. What would the opposition have us do? Sit and do nothing, allowing consumers in the market to be gouged and not be properly serviced? Not allow another competitor to come in on an even basis? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The time for the discussion has concluded. BILLS 12656 BILLS Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018, Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2018, Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018 12656

Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018

Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018

Returned from Senate 12656 BUSINESS 12656 BUSINESS Rearrangement 12656 16:15 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 45, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 12656 BILLS Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017 12656

Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Consideration of Senate Message 12656 16:16 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I move: That the amendments be disagreed to. These amendments are not in line with the objective of the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017. Accordingly, the House of Representatives does not accept these amendments. 16:16 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I rise to remark upon the motion moved by the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations because I think the House does deserve some context. The Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017 was debated in the other place and amendments were successfully voted upon. Of course, if those amendments were accepted here, they would be incorporated into the bill. Labor supported and, indeed, moved those amendments. We still support the tenor and the intent of the amendments; however, the government was in a position not to support them. However, both the government and the opposition support all other provisions of the bill. In order to ensure that the provisions of the original bill are enacted and, therefore, to allow the government to introduce this matter without having to debate and have the amendments considered, the opposition have accepted that we won't insist on the amendments, even though they were successful in the other place. The opposition still hold the view that parliament is in a position to restore penalty rates as of 30 June last year but there are other ways for us to consider this matter and continue to put our case that workers should not be deprived of income. In that vein, we support the motion of the minister. We do think the technical issues have become a problem for parties before the commission. We do believe the commission needs to deal with circumstances that go to the conduct of commissioners. We do accept that the annual review for the modern award is no longer an appropriate approach to take to deal with awards. I also add—and I think the minister would agree—that both employers and unions support the provisions of this bill. To that extent, it is a bipartisan position. I needed to place on the record our ongoing support for the amendments, but we'll seek other avenues to pursue that. Question agreed to. 16:19 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I present the reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate, and I move: That the reasons be adopted. Question agreed to. DELEGATION REPORTS 12658 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Mexico and Peru 12658 16:20 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Mexico and Peru from 22 September to 1 October 2018, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in conjunction with the report. Leave granted. Mrs MARINO HWP On behalf of the delegation, I would really like to thank everyone who contributed to making the program so successful with both the Mexican senate and the Peruvian congress. Their time was very generously given and very much appreciated by those of us who were the members of the delegation. This aspect of the program contributed very significantly to the strengthening of the parliament-to-parliament relations and was a very clear highlight of the delegation's visit. I want to thank the many businesses and government representatives in both Mexico and Peru. These are the people who generously gave up their time to meet with the delegation, to exchange their views and to share their expertise. We would also like to thank Dr David Engel, the Australian Ambassador to Mexico, and his officers at the Australian Embassy in Mexico, as well as Mr Nicholas McCaffrey, the Australian Ambassador to Peru, and his officers at the Australian Embassy in Peru. They offered very dedicated support during our visit. In all of these situations, we know that our embassy teams do an enormous amount of work to make sure that everything is prepared for the visit, before, during and after, so that our meetings run very smoothly. Fiona Way from IPRO also did a great job. I also want to thank the members of the delegation: Senator Kimberley Kitching, Senator David Leyonhjelm and the member for Groom, John McVeigh. And I want to add a special thankyou to our delegation secretary, Stephen Palethorpe, for all of his efforts in supporting the delegation. COMMITTEES 12659 COMMITTEES Electoral Matters Committee 12659 Report 12659 16:22 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin On behalf of Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, on the inquiry into the 2016 federal election and matters related thereto. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GILES 243609 by leave—I'm very pleased to be able to make a few short remarks to advise the House of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Report on the conduct of the 2016 federal election and matters related thereto. I think it is important that this report, which is a considerable document, is presented in good time before the next federal election so that the work of the committee can be incorporated into the preparation of the next electoral event in the new year. I would like to start my remarks by thanking the secretariat for their extraordinary commitment in supporting the work of the committee—and it's very pleasing that two members of the committee are here—and also the liaison staff from the Australian Electoral Commission, who provided important technical assistance. The report traverses a very wide range of matters, and I think I should also advise the House that, as well as the scope of the report in terms of the matters it touched upon, the committee was determined to engage with as many Australians as possible in considering the experience of the last federal election. So the committee conducted hearings not just in Canberra, not just in Sydney and not just in Melbourne but also in Hobart, in Perth, in Adelaide, in Brisbane and in Townsville to try and encompass as much of the experience of people connected to the election as possible. The report covers many significant matters and there are just a few which I will touch upon by way of recommendations briefly. The report recommends some changes to party registration, which I think is an important recommendation in terms of dealing with issues about Senate voting and confidence in that aspect of our democracy. The report spends some time looking at improvements to the electoral roll. These are really critical recommendations and reflect the determination of committee members, in particular Labor members, to ensure that every Australian has every opportunity to participate in our federal elections and in making those critical decisions that determine how we are to live. There is a particular concern evidenced in the report to ensure that voters with disability, and I think particularly voters with vision impairment, have every opportunity to participate and participate effectively in federal elections. The report makes significant recommendations going to civics and its promotion and encouragement. I would encourage members to have regard to those as we all strive to rebuild trust and confidence in the operation of our democracy. The report also deals with some concerning aspects of recent elections, in terms of disinformation and in terms of cybermanipulation. These are increasing concerns for the health of our democracy and do require further investigation by this committee and indeed by other committees, including that responsible for matters of intelligence and security. In terms of the rolls, I just want to make one particular point. It is the view of committee members that we're encouraging greater use of electronic certified lists, which would enhance efficiency and go quite some way to bridging the gap between formal voting in the House of Representatives and in the other place, which is of significant concern, as we are seeing many thousands of Australians cut out from having the opportunity to have their say on who speaks for them in this place. I think it is worth acknowledging the circumstances of the last election, which presented particular challenges with very recent and, some might say, rushed changes to voting systems for the other place, and concerns that were identified in the 2013 election, particularly going to the WA Senate result and to seeing how the recommendations of the Keelty review were put into practice. These are significant matters that require attention by all members. I'm hopeful that this report will be a useful guide to members and indeed to senators in those integrity and oversight aspects of our election. I should note that the committee's findings in relation to its inquiry into the 2016-17 annual report are addressed in this report, and therefore the committee considers this statement to conclude that inquiry. The committee has adopted a new reference to the new annual report, which will continue its oversight of the AEC and relevant electoral matters. In conclusion, I note the work of all committee members, particularly the former chair, Senator Reynolds, and former senator Lee Rhiannon. It has been a pleasure to work with them. There is one discordant note I have to end on, unfortunately, and that is that Labor members have been forced into issuing a dissenting report. This dissenting report deals with recommendation 12, which would propose onerous obligations in respect of voters having to provide forms of identification at polling places. This is profoundly antidemocratic. It is a well-known trope of conservative politics in Australia. Indeed, it was proposed by the conservative majority in the last JSCEM report to this place. It is interesting and important to note that, while government members and others allege incidences of dual voting shaping election results, this report does not identify one single instance of multiple voting being alleged or one single instance of fraudulent voting. Fundamentally, we should all be concerned with giving every Australian every chance to participate in our democracy through federal elections. The vast majority of this report is intended towards that purpose, and we recognise great work by the AEC in that regard. Recommendation 12, however, is a regressive step in the opposite direction and should be rejected by all members of this place. With that, I commend the report to the House, and I move: That the House take note of the report. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 12660 16:29 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 12661 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2018 12661

Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2018

Second Reading 12661 16:29 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I'm just going to continue where I left off earlier today. The government will also underwrite new firm, low-cost generation, which is particularly important for Australia's commercial and industrial users, who the ACCC found were struggling to get medium- to long-term contracts. This program will be technology neutral, as recommended by the ACCC. The bill we introduce today is an essential part of this package and will address energy market misconduct, improve competition and bring down energy prices for Australian consumers. The government has directed the ACCC to monitor retail prices, wholesale bids and contract market liquidity in the National Electricity Market between 2018 and 2025 and announced that this will be backed up by a series of remedies where the ACCC identifies misconduct by electricity market participants. This bill will establish the misconduct to be prohibited and the targeted, proportionate remedies to apply in respect of misconduct in three key areas. First, the retail market: in the event of a 'sustained and substantial' reduction in supply chain costs, retailers will be required to 'make reasonable adjustments' to their retail price offers, including to households and small businesses. The explanatory memorandum makes clear that retailers will not be required to pass on small or short-term cost variations that might last a week or a month. Rather, if they enjoyed a sustained and substantial cost reduction, they need to pass it on. Second, the wholesale market: generators will be prohibited from gaming the spot market. This can occur in a number of ways—for example, by scheduling discretionary maintenance at high summer demand periods with the specific purpose of causing a spike in prices for their other generators or by making low bids that were designed to discourage other companies from bidding into the market and only then, at the last minute, increasing the price of their bids. The ACCC has specifically recommended that rules around false and misleading bids be strengthened, and our legislation does exactly this by prohibiting bids that are fraudulent, dishonest or in bad faith for the purposes of distorting or manipulating prices. Third, the contract market: energy companies will be prevented from withholding hedge contracts for the purpose of substantially lessening competition, which draws on existing concepts of section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act. Unlike gentailers, smaller retailers are unable to manage the risk of volatile spot prices without a hedge contract. The measures in this legislation are designed to ensure financial market liquidity and facilitate competition in the energy market. The ACCC has already recommended a liquidity measure for South Australia. This will complement it and apply nationally. In each of these markets—retail, wholesale and contract—the ACCC will be actively monitoring behaviour. Where companies are in breach, they will act. The legislation sets out a graduated set of penalties that can apply in the event of misconduct. The ACCC will be able to issue a warning notice, accept an enforceable undertaking or seek a financial penalty of up to the greatest of $10 million; three times the value of the total benefit attributable to the conduct; or 10 per cent of the annual turnover of the corporation in the 12 months before the conduct occurred. For the most egregious conduct, the ACCC will be able to recommend that the Treasurer either issue a contracting order or pursue a divestiture order in the courts. A contracting order will be able to be made only following a breach of either the contract liquidity or wholesale conduct prohibitions. A divestiture order will be able to be made only following a breach of the wholesale conduct prohibition. Both are sanctions of last resort. In respect of these orders, companies will be given a chance to explain their conduct before such an order is made. A contracting order would require generators to make reasonable offers in the contract market, and the divestiture order could see companies required to sell an asset, allowing them at least 12 months to do so. The Treasurer may apply to the Federal Court for a divestiture order only when the ACCC and the Treasurer are satisfied that the order has a net public benefit and that it is proportionate to the breach, namely that it is necessary to prevent such conduct occurring in the future and that no other remedy would achieve the same outcome. These laws apply to government owned and privately owned corporations. In the case of a government owned corporation, a divestiture order would not prevent the relevant asset from being divested to another government owned corporation, provided that the two were in genuine competition with each other. This would allow the relevant asset to remain in government ownership while still addressing the misconduct in question and promoting competition. Finally, this bill will also provide additional information-gathering powers to the Australian Energy Regulator, bringing the AER's powers in line with comparable regulators, including the ACCC. The government will implement the default market offer and reference bill, to be set by the AER each year, through separate legislation. The legislation will also provide for the AER to make the necessary instruments as a part of the price determination process. The AER will be able to share this information with Commonwealth agencies. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is leave granted to continue the debate? 16:34 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Leave hasn't been asked for. The second reading speech having concluded, I move: That the debate be adjourned. A division having been called and the bells being rung— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House? Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, the standing orders require that the debate is automatically adjourned. The SPEAKER 00APG That's correct, yes. Mr Pyne 9V5 So there's absolutely no need to have a division. Mr Burke DYW Why'd you call one? The SPEAKER 00APG No, I was watching the tail end, and I just want to clarify that the Manager of Opposition Business moved that the debate be adjourned. The Leader of the House is quite right. The standing orders ensure that the debate is automatically adjourned after the second reading speech. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, Mr Speaker: after the second reading speech from the minister on every bill, the chair asks for someone to move the adjournment, someone stands there and moves that the debate be adjourned, and that question is then put to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG Yes. Mr Burke DYW What the Leader of the House is suggesting is that on every piece of legislation that has gone through this House we have followed the wrong procedure. I put it to you we have not, and what is unusual on this occasion is that the government is dividing against that standard motion. The SPEAKER 00APG Certainly what I saw, and some preliminary advice I've had, is that this division should not be taking place, because the debate will be automatically adjourned. I don't want to waste the time of members. I really don't. I won't. Obviously I can't be in the chair at every instance, but this division, from what I can see, should not be taking place. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, to the point of order, if I may: the easiest way to solve this problem is to call the vote for the ayes, in which case, of course, we won't insist on a division, because we're happy for it to be adjourned, because I have a motion to move. The SPEAKER 00APG Well, if the point is that those who called 'no' no longer want a division, there is no point in proceeding. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, I tell you what: you're here now, but you won't be here in 10 seconds. So, if those who called 'no' are no longer calling for a division, I'll call the division off, and the question is resolved with the ayes. Debate adjourned. 16:40 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the resumption of debate on the motion that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2018 be read a second time being made an order of the day for a later hour. I'm introducing the suspension of standing orders through a contingent motion, which means of course it doesn't require an absolute majority, because this government is absolutely committed to passing this divestment legislation at the earliest possible opportunity in order to get it into the Senate so that the Senate can receive its committee report and pass legislation in the February sittings of the parliament. If we do not pass this divestment legislation in the next 48 hours or less, we won't be able to pass it until February next year and the Senate won't pass it until the budget session next year. So, the longer this takes to pass, the more the energy companies will be able to keep thumbing their noses at consumers around Australia. We would like to see the bill passed so it can go into the Senate, and then it can be debated in the Senate in February and be passed in February, and then the energy companies will be required to listen to the consumers and to the government, directing them to reduce their electricity prices. So everyone who votes against the suspension of standing orders is essentially saying that they want to delay this legislation until at least April next year, and everyone voting in favour of this suspension of standing orders is saying, 'Let's get on with it as soon as we can and pass legislation through the Senate and the House of Representatives by February next year and start taking the big stick to the energy companies.' 16:42 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon This stunt shows just how low this government has sunk when it comes to its credibility, just how pathetic and desperate this once proud government was. This is a government which doesn't have an energy policy and now has thrown out all conventions of this House as a stunt. I move: That the words 'for a later hour' be deleted and replaced with 'on the first sitting day of 2019'. I do so because that's the proper process of this parliament. That's how good policy is made. That is the proper process that the Australian people expect of the government. The SPEAKER 00APG I might stop the member for McMahon. I know you are almost reaching full speed, but, if you are going to move an amendment, it will need to be seconded. Mr Burke DYW Both have signed it and it's in writing. The SPEAKER 00APG It hasn't been seconded yet—I haven't seen that—but I will take that as having been moved. The member for McMahon may proceed. Mr BOWEN DZS Let's be clear about what's happened here and what this government is trying to do. Let's run through this pathetic attempt by this government to distract from its complete failure when it comes to energy policy. This is a government for whom every energy plan has collapsed; every energy policy has been destroyed by its own side. It's come up with a pathetic alibi of a policy called divestment. It had to be rewritten overnight in the Treasury because the government didn't have confidence in the Treasurer's drafting of the proposal. It had to be completely reframed to make it constitutional, to make it comply with the Constitution. I pay tribute to the officials in the Treasury who had to work so hard to rewrite this legislation. But I say with all due respect: the House has not yet seen the legislation properly. The Treasurer rose to his feet just before question time to introduce the legislation. He didn't even finish his introduction before question time. He had to finish it off a moment ago, just then. So the legislation is not the legislation that was issued for consultation; it is completely different. Nobody has seen this legislation. The industry hasn't seen the legislation, the opposition hasn't seen the legislation and—guess what?—the Liberal and National party rooms haven't seen the legislation either. They can't have, because it was introduced about three minutes ago. So these Liberal and National lemmings are going to vote to bring on legislation they have not seen, and they are going to vote for that legislation that they have not seen. The amount of trust I have in this government to get this right hovers roughly around the level of zero, given its incompetence thus far. Frankly, this is also about good process—good, rigorous government process. We can argue about divestment and whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. We'll have that debate; we welcome that. But I'll tell you what I want to know: when will good government start in Australia? The now Leader of the House once used to believe in good government. I suggest the Leader of the House has a listen to these words, because he might find that they are words he would agree with! He has said: Parliament shouldn't be about racing through legislation. Debate on important legislation like the Budget should not be shoved aside, it should take place in the Main Chamber. He then said: The Australian people expect Parliament to sit a full time schedule and consider all items diligently. A Coalition Government will not rush its Parliamentary agenda … He was full of good ideas when he was on this side of the House, wasn't he? But it has all evaporated to nothing, just like their economic credibility. We will have no part of this very poor process, and we will have no part of this very poor legislation either. We're not going to engage in your pathetic little stunts. If you want to debate this, we will debate it. But let the Australian people be clear: this is a low point for this government. This government has hit a nadir today. This Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has done some pretty pathetic things over the last five years, but this one takes the cake: bringing on this legislation which is an excuse for inaction and which will make electricity more expensive. This legislation will chill investment and will make energy more expensive. Where is the economic modelling? This government likes to ask other people for economic modelling. The legislation has only just been laid on the table of the House. I know that nobody has been through it. I know that the Treasury has just completely rewritten it, because the Treasurer had to make policy on the run because the Liberal Party and National Party backbenchers were in revolt. I dare say, if somebody goes through this legislation, they will find errors, and those errors will be on the heads of those opposite, because there will be no opportunity for the House to review the legislation. There will be no opportunity for industry and economists and experts to go through the legislation and point out unintended consequences. There will be no opportunity for people to have their say. The government wishes this legislation to be voted on today. It wants this House to just vote for it, sight unseen. Mr Pyne 9V5 What about the committee process? Mr BOWEN DZS The Leader of the House says, 'What about the committee process?' I didn't know he was proposing that the bill be referred to a House of Representative committee. We're the ones voting on it today. We don't sit in the other house; we have no opportunity to send it to a Senate committee. All we have is the opportunity to vote yes or no on this legislation. This is a government falling apart at the seams—I see the Treasurer has joined the energy minister at the crossbench; anything could happen with this government! I wouldn't put it past them. Anything is possible. We've got to Wednesday and they haven't lost one yet. That's an achievement for this government. It's better than last week, but anything could happen. As this government falls apart, it should not throw out the Westminster conventions and the traditions of good government in this House, which have stood this country well for more than a century. It should not throw those out. They used to be the conservative party, which used to actually believe in parliamentary traditions and conventions. Guess what? Some parliamentary traditions and conventions are symbolic; they are simply for show—important symbolism, but nevertheless symbolism. This one is actually a convention of substance. It means the House should be able to consider legislation properly, carefully and in a methodical fashion. That's what this convention is about. That's why the standing orders say that the debate must be automatically adjourned—as the Leader of the House acknowledged earlier, after his little error of calling a division he didn't mean to call. As far as the Leader of the House's mistakes go today, that is one of the smaller ones. He's having a shocker of a day. He has lost control of the parliament, but the government should not lose control of the process. It is nothing short of a disgrace to bring this legislation on like this, in this rushed fashion. What happened to stable government? What happened to the promise that if you voted for the Liberal and National parties you'd have proper, stable government with a Prime Minister for a term, and proper cabinet processes? We don't know if these rushed changes, rewriting the legislation, have been to cabinet overnight. We would have no way of knowing. The Treasurer is simply flailing at the job as he goes about making up for his errors, forced by a delegation of backbenchers to rewrite the legislation on the run. The member for Curtin has called them out, pointing out that it was an affront to Liberal traditions, the principles of free enterprise and everything this once great party stood for, but I'll tell you what else it's an affront to: all those consumers battling high energy prices. This government, for a stunt, wants to make it worse for them. They want to chill investment and put upward pressure on power prices as they pathetically flail around and politically fail in their task. 16:50 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the question be now put.

The House divided. [16:55]
(The Speaker—the Hon. Tony Smith)

74 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'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 Wilkie, AD Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 71 NOES 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 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 Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

17:01 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:01]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

75 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilkie, AD Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 70 NOES 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 Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) 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 Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

17:04 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the resumption of debate on the motion that the bill be read a second time be made an order of the day for a later hour. 17:04 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I move: That the words 'later hour' be replaced with 'first day of sitting 2019'. 17:04 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House—that the motion be now put—be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:05]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to.

17:08 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the motion of the Leader of the House be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:09]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to.

MOTIONS 12673 MOTIONS Consideration of Legislation 12673 17:10 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Port Adelaide from moving the following motion immediately: The House: (1) notes the Government has failed to observe all due processes to allow Members, businesses and State Governments to properly scrutinise legislation presented to the House today; and (2) calls on the Government to schedule this bill for debate in the first sitting week of 2019. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat. The Leader of the House. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, I would put it to you that the suspension of standing orders we have just passed is too similar to the suspension of standing orders being moved by the member for Port Adelaide to be considered given that the amendment moved by the member for McMahon was in exactly the same terms as the suspension of standing orders motion and we just voted to suspend standing orders to do exactly what the government intended and the Clerk was about to read the title of the bill to begin the second reading debate. That suspension of standing orders is very similar to the one we voted on about 15 minutes ago. Mr Albanese R36 We didn't vote on it. Mr Pyne 9V5 We did. We voted on my suspension of standing orders. Mr Albanese R36 Your motion was the same thing, was it? Is that what you're saying? Mr Pyne 9V5 It was too similar. The SPEAKER 00APG Standing order 94(a) applies! For the Leader of the House: I had called the Clerk for the next item of business but the member for Port Adelaide had been on his feet. I thought he had been on his feet in error ready to speak on the bill. I certainly take the point of the Leader of the House about similarity of language. But the only thing that has been moved on my left-hand side is an amendment, so I am going to allow the member for Port Adelaide to proceed. But I forewarn the House that, once a suspension of this nature has been moved and dealt with, it can't be repeated immediately. The member for Port Adelaide has the call. Mr BUTLER HWK Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House famously said some years ago that the convention has always been that the bill should be introduced and then debated the following sitting week, not the next day. Apparently, debate the next day was some abuse of process in this House! But he's gone even further: he is not only debating the bill tomorrow; he wants to debate this extraordinary Venezuelan-style intervention in a market only a couple of hours after we have been presented with an explanatory memorandum that runs to more than 100 pages. We asked for a briefing on this bill last Monday and got crickets from the other side—from the Treasurer and from the new energy minister. There was no attempt at all to engage with the opposition in providing us with the level of detail all members of parliament deserve when considering a piece of legislation as significant as this Venezuelan neo-Marxist form of market intervention by the so-called Liberal government. 17:14 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member for Port Adelaide be no longer heard.

The House divided. [17:18]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to.

17:21 The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 17:21 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler It is indeed. The fact is that they want to avoid the scrutiny— 17:21 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member for Grayndler be no longer heard.

The House divided. [17:22]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to.

17:24 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland The government is a disgrace. Power prices are going up and they stand for nothing— 17:24 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the question be now put.

The House divided. [17:26]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to.

17:29 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the member for Port Adelaide be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:29]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

70 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 Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) 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 Wilson, JH Zappia, A 75 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilkie, AD Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 2 PAIRS Dreyfus, MA Dutton, PC Macklin, JL Sudmalis, A

Question negatived.

BILLS 12681 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2018 12681

Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2018

Second Reading 12681 17:34 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the debate be adjourned. The SPEAKER 00APG I can't accept that. We've had a contingency motion determined by the House. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, before you rule, if I may raise a point of order— The SPEAKER 00APG I'm not going to rule; I'm just going to try to explain something. There has been a contingent motion moved and passed and the standing orders have been suspended to allow this to occur. We're now on the second reading. That's exactly what the House has been deciding. Mr Burke DYW The contingent notice of motion suspended standing orders to allow a motion to be moved that the second reading would be made an order of the day for a later hour. That suspension allowed the Leader of the House to then move the motion that it be made an order of the day for a later hour. That then happened, and the House has resolved that it be made an order of the day for a later hour. The Clerk has then, in terms of order of government business, said that this is, in fact, not at a later hour but immediately the next item of business. Now that it's the next item of business— The SPEAKER 00APG The Clerk hasn't said that. That's just what has happened. Mr Burke DYW Well, you called the Clerk; it has happened, following the normal process. The SPEAKER 00APG Yes, that's right. Mr Burke DYW I'm not claiming the Clerk has done anything inappropriate. This is the first moment that the debate has been resumed. The suspension had nothing to do with whether or not the debate would be called on immediately. It was simply whether or not that was going to be allowed to be done at a later hour, rather than having to wait for tomorrow. Now that we've commenced, I will move that the debate be adjourned. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House on the point of order. Mr Pyne 9V5 The purpose of the contingency motions and suspensions of standing orders is to allow the House to take an action. The correct motion to effect that action is the motion that the second reading be made an order of the day for a later hour. That is not anticipated to be a later hour during the day or the next day. It's to be the next item of business. So, if the Manager of Opposition Business were correct, then there would be no point in moving the contingency motions. There'd never be able to be a suspension of standing orders to allow an immediate debate because somebody in the House could keep consistently moving the debate be adjourned. So it would actually negate the whole purpose of a suspension of standing orders, and that wasn't the intention, of course, of the standing orders— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Could members cease interjecting? Mr Pyne 9V5 or of any other Speaker in the House for the last 117 years. The SPEAKER 00APG I've got to say that I'm persuaded by that. I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW The Leader of the House is referring to a motion that he did not move. He did not move that the next item of business would be the second reading motion. He did not move that. He simply moved that the resumption on the motion that the bill be read a second time would be made an order of the day for a later hour, and that was carried. That gave the government the flexibility to decide whether this would be the next bill or whether it would be a later bill or whenever it would happen. Whenever they bring on any bill, at that moment we are allowed to move that the debate be adjourned, and I am moving that. The SPEAKER 00APG I'll address the matter in this way. Certainly, it hasn't been the practice for this to occur with other contingent motions, and I think the Manager of Opposition Business would need to concede that. I understand the point he's making about 'a later hour'. He's conceded that it has now been called on and we're now into the debate, and what he's seeking to do is adjourn the debate straightaway now that we're into it. Clearly, it would be unworkable, and I certainly would not allow this motion to be moved continuously, otherwise no work would be done. So I'll allow this motion to be moved, but it'll be decided and decided once. Mr BURKE DYW I move: That the debate be adjourned. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the debate be adjourned.

The House divided. [17:43]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

69 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 Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) 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 Wilson, JH Zappia, A 75 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilkie, AD Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

17:48 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon This is the legislation that the House is being asked to vote on. I assume that every member opposite, by which I mean the government, has read this legislation, 33 pages long. This is the explanatory memorandum for the legislation, 109 pages long. If government members are doing their job, they've all read it and they're all aware of what's in it. It has been lifting the standards of those opposite, I note. If those members opposite have read it, they'd be aware of the interventionist nature of the legislation they are not only proposing to vote for but also proposing to ram through the House in breach of all protocols, conventions and understandings. That's what this so-called conservative government is doing: throwing out years of convention and years of understanding of conventional economics. It was bad enough before this afternoon, when the government was simply proposing to introduce legislation different to that which was consulted upon. The government released draft legislation. It was out for a very short period of time, a few days, for consultation. Business and those affected had around three days to provide their response to the legislation. Three days is tight, but I tell you what: it is better than zero minutes, which is the chance for consultation that the government has now given the industry I have an advantage. As a member of parliament, I have the legislation. I went up to the table to get it. I confess to the House that I've not yet read it. It was only introduced a short time ago. I've had a chance to skim through it. Nobody outside this building has read it. Nobody outside this building has had the chance to analyse it. The truth is neither have government members opposite. They haven't read it. It hasn't been to the Liberal and National party rooms. It hasn't been through their normal, proper processes. This legislation has not been to the party room because they didn't have it. Was this legislation tabled before the Liberal and National party rooms? Did they have the chance to go through the 109 pages of the explanatory memorandum? Did they have the chance to go through this legislation clause by clause? The fact of the matter is they did not. They know it. That's the fact. They didn't have the chance to go through it. This was bad enough. Industry and business were concerned enough about this before this charlatan excuse for a government did this stunt of trying to force it through the parliament this afternoon. A couple of days ago there was a joint statement from the Australian Energy Council, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association, the Business Council of Australia, the Energy Networks Australia and the Energy Users Association of Australia. They said: Australia's business community and the energy sector urge the Australian Government to abandon proposed legislation that will impede the broader investment environment in Australia and specifically discourage badly needed investment in the energy sector. Let's have another look at those people who co-signed this statement. The government, and this poor excuse for an energy minister, will say, 'It's just big business—those evil people in big business.' The Energy Users Association are the people who represent the big consumers of energy. I would have thought that if this legislation was going to put downward pressure on prices the Energy Users Association might be rather in favour of that. The big energy users across the country probably think that's a good idea. The fact of the matter is that the Energy Users Association aren't stupid. They know that this legislation will, in fact, put upward pressure on prices because it will crimp investment. When you've got a coalition of the energy generators and the energy users saying that this government has got it terribly wrong, you would think it would give this government pause for thought. It might give them a moments reflection. What does this government do? They say: 'No, we're going to double-down. We're going to make it worse by completely rewriting the legislation overnight in the Treasury—pulling an all-nighter down at the Treasury rewriting the legislation—at the government's behest.' I have every confidence in the Treasury, but with the best will in the world there may well be mistakes in this legislation. Who would know? Nobody has seen it before today. They have made a bad situation very much worse. The signatories to the statement go on to point out just how bad this legislation is, and I hazard a guess that they continue to have very significant concerns with the legislation as it has been redrafted. A short time ago, the Australian Energy Council noted: We are disappointed the Government has introduced this Bill into the Parliament, not only because it represents unprecedented market intervention, but also because of the secretive way the Bill has been developed without any reasonable consultation or consideration of its impacts. They went on to say: This Bill, if passed, will have far-reaching consequences beyond the energy industry. And yet, despite these ramifications and without the support of any industry body, consumer group or even its own regulator, the Government is pressing on regardless. The ACCC concluded there was no need for these intrusive powers in the already heavily regulated energy market. It is disappointing that we are not focusing on implementing the positive recommendations in the ACCC Report which would actually improve market transparency and price outcomes for customers. Instead the ACCC's recommendations have been pushed aside in favour of heavy-handed and poorly drafted market interventions. This is all the Energy Council— There remain constitutional issues with the Bill and it is devoid of detail, uncertain and vague to the extent that market participants could not be confident about how to comply with it. Given the Government says it wants to lower prices and encourage investment it is hard to understand why this Bill, that would achieve the precise opposite, is necessary. The Bill if passed would only raise risk and costs, leading to higher prices for Australian homes and businesses. We urge the Government to reconsider the Bill and instead return to negotiations with industry to deliver better outcomes for customers. That was issued at 4.40 pm today. Perhaps the Energy Council did not realise at that point—and why would they have?—that the government was virtually, as that statement was being released, doubling down and not listening to the Energy Council, not returning to consultations but seeking to ram the legislation through this House. I've said before that this legislation is more in keeping with what you would see in Venezuela than what you would expect in Australia. Mr Husic 91219 Very harsh on Venezuela! Mr BOWEN DZS I don't think the Venezuelans would have adopted this process. This process is more like that in dictatorships we see around the world where sham legislation is rammed through a parliament. This is sham legislation from a ramshackle government—a government falling apart before our eyes. But this legislation has very significant ramifications for consumers. If this were a good idea, you would think it might have been recommended to the government by somebody—in fact, anybody might have recommended this to the government. We know that the ACCC didn't recommend it to the government, and the Prime Minister was disingenuous and, frankly, dishonest when talking about the ACCC's role in this before. The chairman of the ACCC said before the Senate that the ACCC had considered divestment powers and had rejected them. That's not how the Prime Minister characterised the ACCC's view before—that's not an accurate reflection of what the ACCC was doing. The ACCC explicitly rejected divestment powers as an option. I'm a former minister for competition policy. Competition policy has been regularly reviewed in Australia. There have been eminent Australians reviewing competition policy, making recommendations for its updating. There was the Hilmer review, the Dawson review and, most recently, the Harper review. Did any of those reports recommend divestiture powers for the government or for the ACCC? Did the Hilmer report recommend that? Did the Dawson report recommend divestiture powers? Did the Harper review recommend divestiture powers? No. Silence from those opposite is the answer, because they know that none of those reports recommended those divestiture powers be implemented. The case is that this is a government which makes it up as it goes along. It's not only the fact that the experts have rejected divestiture powers—economists and lawyers, who point out that this still has problems with the Constitution. I'm not a constitutional lawyer; I'm not a lawyer at all, for that matter. But, when constitutional lawyers identify a problem, it should, you would think, give the government pause for concern, reflection, that maybe complying with the Constitution would be beneficial and would be a superior way of doing things, and that being in breach of the Constitution would be a problem for a government. No, it doesn't make these guys slow down. They double down and move faster. What we've got is industry group after industry group pointing out that this will do nothing to reduce power prices and will, in fact, make them higher. We saw Jennifer Westacott in The Australian Financial Review yesterday saying: The principle that governments can misuse their power to break up companies sets a dangerous precedent that will deter investment across the economy. This will do nothing to solve high power prices for families and businesses struggling to pay their bills today. Ms Westacott confirmed and strengthened that view today in The Daily Telegraph. The Ai Group chief executive, Innes Willox, after the rewriting, said that industry still held grave concerns about the powers, despite the changes, and he implored the government to instead re-embrace the National Energy Guarantee to give industry the investment framework that it craved and that would, in time, bring down power prices. He said that energy and climate policy had been 'the worst piece of policy in a couple of generations'. We certainly agree with that in relation to the last five years. He said, 'The NEG at least gives us a pathway out.' That is right. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that we are happy to support a National Energy Guarantee. We're happy to sit down and negotiate with you. We'll just have none of this nonsense, this drivel that we had from the minister at the table, that it's about a 45 per cent target. A National Energy Guarantee—as the minister should know—is a framework; it's a mechanism. The target can be set by the government of the day—and, as we stand, they are still the government, although they don't behave like it. This mob opposite are still technically the government of Australia, even though they have given up governing. Even though they are imploding before our eyes, they still hold their commission as the government. They haven't had the courage to hand it in, even though they probably should. The fact of the matter is that the government of the day set the target, and the National Energy Guarantee could be a framework for which the government of the day could set the target. If they want a lower target than the Labor Party does, they could set it. Then, if there were a change of government, after the election, it could be reviewed as part of the National Energy Guarantee. But no: the government are against the National Energy Guarantee, when just a few months ago they were telling us that it was absolutely vital to put downward pressure on prices. I doubt that the government is going to provide many speakers on this bill, because why would any 'true Liberal', to coin a phrase, want to associate themselves with this piece of interventionist nonsense? So, I doubt that we'll get many government members. But if there were a government member willing to put their name to this piece of nonsense that the House has before it, this legislation that was hastily drafted and is not in keeping with good and proper government, they might explain to us who recommended this. Did the ACCC recommend it? Did the Dawson, Harper or Hilmer review recommend it? Did any review of competition policy or energy policy over the past two decades recommend it? Did anybody recommend it? The minister at the table is welcome to elucidate and share with the House where this idea came from. Who recommended it to the government? I accept that the government can come up with its own ideas. It doesn't need them to be recommended. But wouldn't you think that at some point, with all the discussion there's been about energy policy in Australia—with all the debate, with all the views that have been expressed—somebody somewhere who's sensible would have said: 'Do you know what we need? We need a big stick. That's what we need. We need a slogan, and we need the government of the day to be able to force the divestiture of the energy companies.' The fact of the matter is that this is poor policy made up by a government and a minister, who's at the table, who's completely out of his depth when it comes to this. Mr Conroy 249127 He's on L-plates. Mr BOWEN DZS He's an L-plate minister who's simply not up to the job, and neither is the Treasurer. We've got a government that is pathologically incapable of giving the country an energy policy and will chill investment. It will have a chilling effect on investment, which is the worst we have. Mr Taylor 231027 Is there a chilling effect in the US and the UK? Mr BOWEN DZS The minister raises the United States and the United Kingdom. Mr Taylor 231027 The Sherman act— Mr BOWEN DZS The Sherman act is not an energy-specific act. This government seems to think that a principle established in the competition law of another country which is not industry specific and is reserved for the most grievous breaches of anti-trust law and has been implemented only in relation to Standard Oil and AT&T—the most grievous breaches of anti-trust in the United States. Divestiture policy has not been part of the Australian competition policy landscape. It simply has not. But, if it wanted to have a debate about making it part of the Australian competition policy landscape, then we could have that debate. We could discuss the pros and cons. We could have a proper review. We could look at the way it should be done. It's telling that the government has only done this for energy companies— Mr Taylor 231027 There's a reason for that. Mr BOWEN DZS 'There's a reason for that,' says the minister. Well, the reason is that this is the thin end of the wedge. Next time there's a little bit of a political problem with supermarkets, let's have the Coles and Woolworths divestment power! Then it'll be the banks. That'll be next. The minister claims that energy companies are making too much profit. Well, banks are pretty profitable. Coles and Woolworths are pretty profitable. Why don't we have divestment powers for them? Mr Conroy 249127 Pretty high market penetration. Mr BOWEN DZS They're pretty concentrated markets, as my honourable friend points out. They're pretty profitable markets. By the logic of the minister, it should apply to them. I mean, the minister's entitled to come to the despatch box and explain why it doesn't—because the government have made it up as they go. The fact of the matter is that this particular piece of policy flim-flammery has no support from any serious or credible economist, commentator or industry participant—none. The government are out like a shag on a rock on this one—zero support. They look behind them for support and there's none there, because there are sensible people in this debate. There are actually people who know what we need in energy policy in Australia, and it's a bit of investment certainty. That would be nice. A bit of a framework for renewable energy would be good—a bit of an understanding that the government understand the needs of industry for investment. But what we have instead is a government that actually make it worse by engaging in an effort to make it basically impossible for people to invest, because the sword of divestment hangs over those investments. In the various economic portfolios I've held over the years I've come to understand that foreign investors, in particular, pay close attention to the legislative framework. They are always on the lookout for sovereign risk. It's often the case—it has been the case—that good intentions by governments have been misunderstood by investors overseas, who don't necessarily follow our debates as closely as we do. Changes like this create grave concern for investors, whether they be domestic or foreign—grave concern when it comes to engaging in the need to provide a framework where investors, whether they be domestic or foreign, can put their money into renewable energy, and into energy more broadly, and know what the rules are and know that their investment is not going to be taken off them. It is the case that the government has just completely flummoxed this issue from beginning to end. We are here today as a result of the clean energy target collapsing and then the National Energy Guarantee collapsing—collapsing under the weight of internal opposition from climate change deniers opposite who don't believe in climate change and don't believe we should participate in policies to deal with climate change. Now, as a new Prime Minister comes to office—the third in five years—he says: 'Quick, we need at least a semblance of a policy. We need an excuse for a policy. We need an alibi of a policy. I need to have something to go to the election with. I need at least something to take to the people to say that this is how I'm going to reduce power prices.' The little coterie opposite comes up with the idea of divestment powers. That's what they come up with. That is about the worst piece of public policy development I've seen in my time here. Mr Conroy interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS It's a low bar, as my honourable friend points out. I do think that this is a strong contender, and I think it is by far the worst piece of competition policy I've seen, and I've seen some shockers from the other side on competition policy. The effects test was pretty bad, and the Birdsville amendment was pretty bad, but this is the worst. This has real-life consequences. It means that there will be people paying more for electricity than they otherwise should. Big power users, big industry in Australia, will be paying more, and that will flow through to consumers more broadly, who will be paying more, directly, as well. Several members opposite have pointed out in the privacy of the Liberal party room—such that it is—that this offends Liberal principles, that it offends Liberal traditions, and they had the courage to stand up for that. I hope they have the courage to stand up for it in this House as well, and not just in the Liberal party room. It's true that they forced a backdown from the Treasurer, to remove the power from the Treasurer to the ACCC, and a legal process. That is true. That they got that climb-down is something. But, as the commentators who I quoted before pointed out, this still causes grave concern. There is a better way than what the government has engaged in. You could invest in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, as we are proposing to do. You could create an energy security modernisation fund, as we are proposing to do. You could create an energy productivity agenda, as we are proposing to do. You could engage in a process to do with just transition, as the member for Shortland and the member for Port Adelaide have designed for the Labor Party, a policy we're very proud of, to help workers adjust. The minister opposite doesn't care about those affected by inevitable change in the economy. Instead we have this crazy, Venezuelan approach from those opposite, who once used to believe in something. I don't know what the government believe in now. I don't know what the government stand for now. They clearly don't stand for good economics and they clearly don't stand for good policy; they clearly, by their actions, stand for higher power prices and stand for making the situation worse. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House declines to give the bill a second reading, and notes: (1) this unprecedented intervention into markets which will result in higher prices for families and businesses; (2) the Government has abandoned all pretence at being the party of free enterprise and open markets; and (3) the Government has abandoned all proper processes, scrutiny and consultation. The House should express the view that this government has completely lost the plot when it comes to energy policy. There's a very significant price to be paid for that. That is the stark difference between this side of the House and the other side of the House. I'm happy to have our energy policies debated in the lead-up to the next election. The shadow minister, the member for Port Adelaide, is more than happy to debate the minister. Mr Butler HWK I'm impatient. Mr BOWEN DZS He's impatient for a debate. I hope that the minister at the table accepts the opportunity to have several debates with the member for Port Adelaide during the election campaign. We'll be watching very closely, and the member for Port Adelaide will towel up the Minister for Energy, because the Minister for Energy doesn't have an energy policy apart from this piece of ridiculous, interventionist nonsense. What the member for Port Adelaide will bring to that debate is a well-designed, holistic, comprehensive approach to energy policy. What we will provide to the Australian people and investors is the certainty required for investment. What we will put forward is a plan for proper investment, for engagement with the industry and for certainty to be supplied to investors to get power prices down. The government are entitled to quibble with elements of the plan if they wish. They can put alternative points of view. They can argue with it. The difference is that we have one. We have a plan. We have a policy to debate. We have policies that we are happy to put out for scrutiny. Apart from this piece of nonsense, which may well be unconstitutional, which clearly is counterproductive and which is being rushed through the parliament in this most reprehensible and shameful fashion, those opposite have nothing. Everything they have tried, everything they have touched, has turned to dirt. Everything they have embraced has failed when it comes to energy policy. Every single thing the government have attempted to do has failed, and they deserve to have their policies condemned by industry, condemned by experts, condemned by lawyers who think it may well be unconstitutional and condemned by consumers who think it will put up the pressure on prices, because that is exactly what it will do. We on this side of the House stand for good policy. We stand for proper, robust, well-designed policy. We also stand for good processes. Processes in this House are designed for a reason: to stop bad law, to stop bad legislation with unintended consequences and to allow proper scrutiny. If the government had nothing to hide then they would be happy to have this debate in the normal, proper fashion, which would allow scrutiny of their legislation and would allow experts to provide their views on draft legislation and then legislation before the House. This government is cutting and running from scrutiny and from the normal proper processes of good government. It is a government that should be ashamed of its actions, in all seriousness. This government should be ashamed of itself: throwing out years of Liberal Party legacy, throwing out good and proper policy development, throwing out the previously bipartisan understanding about sovereign risk and throwing out good and proper processes in this House by this shameful stunt today. This Treasurer, this Prime Minister and this energy minister should be ashamed of their roles in this stunt today. This is a stunt. They are using their numbers in government to ram this legislation, which has significant ramifications for Australian consumers, through this House without the normal processes and without the normal scrutiny. They should be ashamed. Liberals around the country would be ashamed of their party tonight. They'll be watching and listening to this and saying: 'This is not what I signed up for. I didn't join this Liberal Party to have these interventionist powers and to be running from the proper processes and scrutiny.' I would understand good, proper and decent Liberals being ashamed of their party this evening. Mr Butler interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS Yes, former long-serving Treasurer Peter Costello would never have done this. He wouldn't have done this, and the Fraser government wouldn't have done this. The government have sold out on everything they ever believed in. They have sold out on everything the Liberal Party ever stood for. They have sold out on everything that this parliament ever stood for when it comes to proper processes. I want to know: when does good government start? What's the date on which good government starts in this country? When are we going to see a decent government with a proper policy approach that is prepared to seek a mandate for what it does, prepared to implement a good policy and prepared to have it debated by this parliament? The poor excuse for a cabinet that sit opposite us are incapable of delivering for Australia. They have had plenty of opportunities over five years. We've given them plenty of goes. They've had the opportunity to deliver an energy policy. We've been willing to engage each time—on the clean energy target and on the National Energy Guarantee. Every single time we've been willing to engage with those opposite on a bipartisan project, and every single time they have failed. We are not willing to engage on this. We've had enough. We've drawn the line. We're not going to engage with the government. We're not going to parry with this sort of bad policy. We have our limits when it comes to giving in to the demands of those opposite just for the sake of bipartisanship. We will not provide bipartisanship for this poor policy. We've been prepared to back policies that we haven't designed and we've been prepared to back policies that we think are imperfect but are an improvement on the current situation, but we're not going to back bad policies. We're not going to back policies that are detrimental to the interests of Australian consumers, that throw out years of understanding of what is necessary for investment certainty and that have been condemned by those who know what they're talking about. The Minister for Energy, who is at the table, doesn't know what he's talking about. The government don't know what they're talking about. They're just looking for something—anything—to get them through the next six months. The problem is that there is a price to be paid. There are ramifications of bad policy, and that price is increased power prices, and it is paid by those who can least afford it. Australian households are doing it tough. Australian industry have dealt with an increase in wholesale power prices on this government's watch, and more increases have been predicted by the market, as this government has failed. The Labor Party stand ready with an alternative policy. We will oppose this legislation every step of the way. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Butler HWK I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 18:18 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume What we are seeing from the other side on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2018 is confusion because they don't know whether they're in favour of a big stick, a small stick or no stick at all. There is one thing that they are not confused about one little bit, and that is that they stand for the profits of the big energy companies. What an extraordinary turnaround by Labor! The industry has malfunctioned. The ACCC made it very clear—it's all laid out—that three players in this market have 80 per cent of the dispatchable generation across each state. It's clear from the ACCC report—there is no ambiguity whatsoever—that that is resulting in a bad deal for consumers, and the government needs to act. Those opposite have said they will sit with the big energy companies in protecting their profits. This is puzzling to me because Labor used to be the party of the workers. It used to be a party of the sorts of people who work in steel mills and aluminium smelters and of the middle Australians who struggle to pay their energy bills. But they've given them away; they're not interested in those people at all. There's a reason for this: they actually want higher electricity prices. Don't take it from me; take it from the Labor Environment Action Network. They are strongly praised by the shadow minister over there; he thinks they're a wonderful group; he said so himself. They have talked about higher electricity prices as 'the market working well'. The shadow minister wants to see higher electricity prices. In fact, last time they were in government, they doubled the prices. They added a carbon tax; they doubled the prices. There is a reason why they want higher prices: they need higher prices because they have committed to a 45 per cent emission reduction target, which the Business Council has said will be a wrecking ball for the economy. The only way they're going to achieve that is by getting Australian businesses small and large, and Australian households, to buy less electricity. They need that. They have got to have that or else they're never going to reach their targets. That's what they're absolutely committed to. It's not the only thing they're going to do with the 45 per cent emission reduction target. They're also going to have to hit agriculture hard. They haven't explained to us yet what they're going to do in controlling farmers' land. They are going to tighten native title legislation for all the farmers who get out there every day in a drought, like right now, and bust themselves to make a buck. They're going to have to explain the tightening of the native title laws that they're going to bring in. Mr Conroy 249127 Native title? Mr TAYLOR 231027 I'll take that interjection—under the EPBC. They're going to have to explain to the transport sector what's going to happen. At the last election, they committed—it was a very sneaky commitment; they thought they got away with this one—to light vehicle emissions standards of 105 grams per kilometre. That is absolutely unrealistic for hardworking Australians and small businesses. The two favourite vehicles of farmers and tradies are the Toyota HiLux and the Ford Ranger. The Toyota HiLux creates 200 grams per kilometre. They're going to have to chop it in half! And the Ford Ranger is worse, at 234. They're going to have to take 60 per cent out of it! I don't know which part they are going to cut; they are going to have to cut it one way or another. Should they switch to a Prius? I look forward to the opposition leader swapping his and his shadow ministers' Comcars for Ford Fiestas—and even the Ford Fiesta doesn't fall under Labor's reckless target. I don't know how they're going to do this, but one thing is clear: they need higher prices in order to achieve it. We have seen from the Climate Change Authority, that, in order to get to the sort of outcomes they're talking about here, you need a carbon price of five times the last one. It is absolutely apparent that in order to achieve that they're going to have to raise the price of electricity, which is what they want to do. We on this side of the House want to see lower electricity prices. That is our policy. We want to see lower electricity prices while we keep the lights on. What a sound objective that is for every Australian family and for those hardworking small businesses that use so much energy. Whether they're abattoirs, cafes or delicatessens—you name it—right across regional, urban and suburban Australia there are businesses that need lower electricity prices in order to be able to employ and invest and do all those things that we want Australian businesses to do. A million new jobs have been created in the time that we've been in parliament as a result of our good policies. Here is another good policy that will continue to add to that job creation. This legislation is part of a broader package of the price safety net where we're seeing half a million families and small businesses get a better deal: those who need it most; those who don't have the time to get on the phone and negotiate with call centres for hours on end. We'll see households get an advantage from this. In New South Wales, households will be, on average, $200 better off; in Victoria, $313; in South Australia, $270; and, in South-East Queensland, $175. We're bringing low-cost, reliable power into the market because we do have an enormous investment. We have a $15 billion investment in solar and wind happening right now, but we've got to keep enough dispatchable reliable power in the system to keep the lights on and keep the prices down. That's why we're working to a short list of projects in the new year. Meanwhile, we're imposing the retailer reliability obligation through COAG, with my state and territory colleagues, to ensure that years ahead of time the retailers invest in the capacity necessary to keep prices down and keep the lights on. Labor, ultimately, need to decide here whether they are on the side of Australians or the big energy companies. These are essential services bought by every Australian business and every Australian family, and that is why it is so crucial that we treat this as an essential service, where having a fair deal is important for all Australians. That's why, given the behaviour, the conduct and the structure of the market that we've seen in recent years, we need to act. It turns out that Labor is satisfied with the status quo that the ACCC described as 'unacceptable and unsustainable'. Here are your experts: 'unacceptable and unsustainable' from the ACCC. Labor rejected legislation before they had even seen it. This bill complements the ACCC's ongoing electricity monitoring inquiry, which will run until 2025. Our legislation will also sunset in 2025. We see this as a transition for the industry, where there needs to be culture change, conduct change and a change in outcomes. There are three markets which this legislation is focused on. In the retail markets, we have seen retailers deliberately confusing customers with their discounting strategy, using what the ACCC has called excessively high benchmarks and complex offer structures. That needs to change, and we need to see retail prices tracking more closely with wholesale prices. That's what we need to see. Those opposite are against that. They want to see retail prices going up despite wholesale prices coming down. That's what they want to see. It's extraordinary for a Labor Party to think that was a good outcome. This legislation addresses that issue fair and square. In the wholesale market, a lack of competition has resulted in higher prices. The ACCC itself has said: This lack of competitive pressure is of concern to the ACCC, particularly given the critical need for a sufficient level of competition in this market to drive affordable electricity prices. The ACCC said: In all NEM regions, a single generation business accounted for more than 30 per cent of dispatched energy in the year to April 2018. They go on to say that three players make up over 80 per cent of dispatched capacity. We have seen, sadly, price gouging in the market. We saw that after Hazelwood closed. The ACCC found in their report that AGL and Origin shifted capacity previously bid at less than $30 to up to $150 a megawatt hour. They took advantage of that withdrawal of supply. We won't put up with that. That is clearly anticompetitive behaviour, and it's anticompetitive behaviour that those opposite are defending. What an extraordinary situation! They upped the bidding from 30 bucks to 150 bucks because of a withdrawal of supply, and those opposite are defending the practice. The contract market—this is the hedge market; it's caps and swaps and all those means of managing risk in the market—is absolutely crucial. If you're an independent generator or an independent retailer in the market, you have to get access to this contract market. We know that in some markets—particularly in South Australia, and the shadow minister would be aware of this—that contract market has been shut down by the big players that are acting in a way that has made it extremely difficult for new entrants and small players to come into the market. We won't stand for that. The ACCC itself said that in certain regions and in particularly South Australia: … the level of liquidity and the advantages enjoyed by vertically integrated retailers make it difficult for new entrants and smaller retailers to compete effectively in the retail market. What are those opposite going to do about it? You are not supporting this legislation. You think it's okay to shut it down to the big players, like big unions and big business—it doesn't matter; you love it big. We saw the spectre of them in recent days defending big tech. That's where Labor have come to. The legislation provides a graduated series of remedies to this misconduct, starting with ACCC-issued warning notices and infringement notices and moving up to court-ordered civil penalties that can go up to either $10 million—three times the value of the total benefit attributable to the conduct—or 10 per cent of the annual turnover of the corporation in the previous 12 months. It then moves up to, on the recommendation of the ACCC, Treasurer-issued contracting orders that will permit the Treasurer to require companies to offer electricity financial contracts to third parties. Finally, on the recommendation of the ACCC, as a last resort and following an application by the Treasurer, there are Federal Court-issued divestiture orders relating to misconduct in the wholesale market. We do see asset divestment powers in other countries, such as in the US with the Sherman act and in the UK with their Enterprise Act. They have been used as a last resort. They are court ordered. We are making this more restrictive. It is restricted to an industry for a certain period of time because of the poor conduct, the poor outcomes and the poor structure of the industry that we have seen in recent times. It is targeted, it is proportionate, it is time limited and it is court ordered. Those opposite talk about investment and sovereign risk. In my time in the business community, I spent a lot of time in the UK and the US, looking at UK and US businesses. Despite the fact that they have the Sherman act and the Enterprise Act, not once did I ever hear an investor say: 'You know what? We're not going to invest in the US or UK because of the Sherman act or the Enterprise Act. We're not going to do that.' It simply doesn't happen. As a last resort, asset divestment—particularly in this case, when it is time limited and industry specific—is a reasonable and proportionate response to what, in this case, has been an industry that is not delivering to its customers. We stand for those customers. We stand for those hardworking small businesses, like the aluminium smelters. We stand for those hardworking businesses in electorates like those of the two opposite members. There will be many cafes and manufacturing businesses— Ms Stanley interjecting— Mr TAYLOR 231027 I will take that interjection. The aluminium industry needs lower electricity prices. That's what it needs. We stand for the jobs of those hardworking Australians in energy-intensive businesses. We stand for the small businesses that need lower electricity prices. We stand for the households who deserve a better deal from energy companies who have doubled their profits in recent years, and those opposite want to block this legislation. 18:33 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide What a shambles. I've said before that this minister and his factional colleagues on the back bench—the member for Hughes; the member for Warringah, the former Prime Minister; and various others—worked so assiduously at tearing down any attempt by former Prime Minister Turnbull to develop an energy policy that had the support of business groups, had the support of state governments and had the potential for support from federal Labor to be a bipartisan solution to the energy crisis. They worked so assiduously at tearing everything down: the emissions intensity scheme; the clean energy target that was recommended by Alan Finkel, the Chief Scientist, in response to a request from this government; and the National Energy Guarantee, a policy that the now Prime Minister said had a broader level of support than any other measure he had seen in his 10 years in this parliament. They were absolutely assiduous in tearing those down. You have to recognise their level of determination and hard work to tear down those policies. The problem for the new minister is that he is like the dog that caught the car. They've given him responsibility for fixing the mess that he, the member for Warringah, the member for Hughes and their hard Right factional colleagues have all created, and he has absolutely no idea how to do it. This fellow who comes in and continues to boast about his business experience, his education and the amount of modelling he's done actually has no idea how to come to grips with this deep energy crisis that is gripping and challenging the viability of businesses across the nation and household budgets across the nation. This is what he's got. He's got two policies. The first is this Venezuelan style neo-Marxist intervention into the market, into the NEM—this legislation we're debating today. The second is the idea of chucking literally billions of dollars of taxpayer funds to build new coal-fired power stations that private investors will not touch with a barge pole, with the exception, of course, of Clive Palmer—the only private investor who said he will partner with this government in building new coal-fired power stations, just after he's finished building Titanic II. Not only are they throwing money at getting the thing built, but this minister has said he is willing to grant a taxpayer funded indemnity against future carbon risk to any of those operators of new coal-fired power stations. The Australian Industry Group—not Greenpeace—has estimated that that indemnity would be worth $17 billion just for one coal-fired power station. They want to build more than that. We see reports in newspapers. Just for one coal-fired power station, which private investors won't touch, this minister is willing to write a cheque of $17 billion of taxpayer funds—not his own—to indemnify that operator against future carbon risk. This is not a policy. This is an embarrassment—as the shadow Treasurer said, 'an embarrassment to this parliament'. It is an embarrassment to what on this side we recognise as a proud legacy of the Liberal Party, over seven decades or so, of respecting free markets. What we have is this shambles of policy after policy after policy. My colleague the assistant shadow minister for climate change and energy has pointed out that in the dying days of Malcolm Turnbull's prime ministership—in large part due to the constructive intervention by my friend the member for Hughes—there were four energy policies from this government in just 14 days. This week we've had two energy policies from this government. It's still only Wednesday evening, so we might have more than two. As far as we can count, this government is now up to 10 energy policies just in this term of parliament. They are all characterised by internal division, ideological disputation and a bit of personal ambition thrown in—like the member for Hume, who is now the energy minister. Now this government wants this House to deal with one of the most sweeping changes to the investor climate in this country's history in less than 24 hours. We asked for a briefing on this legislation last Monday, 10 days ago, and we heard nothing from the Treasurer or his office, or from the energy minister or his office. The Queensland energy minister has made clear, in a number of pieces of correspondence, that since this policy was announced he wanted some detail. As a member of the COAG Energy Council, as effectively the shareholder owner of substantial electricity assets in Queensland, he wanted some detail about how this would impact Queensland electricity assets and Queensland consumers, and he has heard nothing from this government. Business hasn't seen this. Other stakeholders haven't seen this legislation. The crossbench and the opposition haven't seen this legislation, until a few hours ago. This is legislation that has extraordinary implications, runs to several dozen pages and is supported by an explanatory memorandum that runs to more than 100 pages. As a process this has been a shambles, but the more serious concern is a matter of substance, because what we know this policy or this legislation would do if it were passed by this parliament is to smash what remains of investor confidence in a sector that is already reeling from this coalition party room's decision to kill the National Energy Guarantee. The NEG was a policy that was supported by every single business organisation in this country, energy companies and, more importantly, energy users. It was supported by every state government, Labor and Liberal alike, and would have been supported by an overwhelming majority of this House of Representatives if the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, had had the confidence—as the member for Leichhardt pointed out this morning, had had the courage—to put the matter to a vote. We know that investor certainty and confidence in this industry are already at record lows. Pushing them further down will have only one consequence for consumers, and that is to push power prices up even further than they've reached under this government. The first question that the reasonable, objective observer who's perhaps new to the energy policy debate in this county—lucky them—might ask is: where did this idea come from? Did it come from the consumer watchdog, the ACCC, a body empowered by this parliament specifically to look after the interests of consumers? And, coincidently, it is a body that has spent the last 18 to 24 months involved in an exhaustive inquiry into the operation of the electricity market. If this idea of divestment was in the interests of consumers, you'd think perhaps that the consumer watchdog, after that inquiry, might have recommended it among the 56 recommendations it made to government about how to reduce power prices for consumers, households and businesses. Well, it didn't. I heard the Prime Minister quote selectively from the ACCC report—this very extensive report, an excellent report—apparently to support the legislation that we're now debating. He selectively didn't include this quote from the ACCC: Requiring the divestiture of privately owned assets is an extreme measure to take in any market, including the electricity market. … … … … the ACCC does not believe it would be appropriate to intervene to unwind the way in which the market has evolved across the NEM— the National Electricity Market. Maybe the Prime Minister thought the ACCC had changed its mind, that Rod Sims had changed his mind about this. After the announcement by the Prime Minister, and I think the Treasurer, of this divestiture policy, which came out of nowhere—not supported by the Harper competition policy review of several years ago, not recommended by the ACCC—perhaps he thought that Rod Sims might have changed his mind. On the morning of that announcement Rod Sims was in a Senate estimates hearing and he was asked whether he'd been consulted about this announcement. He said in Senate estimates: I think I can confidently say I found out about it when everybody else did: when I read about it in the newspaper. … … … And I guess, divestiture is such an extreme step that we felt that judgement would be very hard to reach. … … … But that was the judgement we reached, and our view hasn't changed. So the ACCC certainly didn't recommend it, and it remains, it would appear, of the same view. Perhaps business groups that use a lot of energy, that have the biggest energy bills in this country and perhaps the best understanding of the way in which energy markets are bearing upon consumers, would have thought this would be a good idea for them and would help bring power bills down. Well, no, they don't. All the business user groups of energy have said that this—to use their language—involves a deep and genuine sovereign risk, one that will further undermine investor confidence and push power prices up, not push them down. Indeed, the head of the Business Council of Australia, Jennifer Westacott, wrote in The Daily Telegraph today: It is surprising to see this legislation proposed by a Liberal Government. This is the kind of intrusive, heavy-handed intervention into the market you would expect from the Greens. The shadow Treasurer says perhaps neo-Marxist Venezuela. The Greens, Venezuela—I think you get the picture. She described it as 'ill-conceived and rushed policy' that won't achieve what is desperately needed—lower electricity bills for families and for businesses. Clearly the ACCC hasn't recommended it. Business doesn't want it—and I'm not talking about the energy companies. Of course they don't want it; you'd expect that. I'm interested in what businesses that use energy, not supply energy, want: the Energy Users Association, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Business Council, APPEA. Those are the business organisations that understand this industry and have rejected this legislation as dangerous, as reckless and as something that will only exacerbate the deep energy crisis that has emerged under this government. But today we've also learned that there is an even more sinister motivation behind this legislation, and that was when the Minister for Energy confirmed that the state of Queensland was, to use his words, on notice that this power would be used to privatise publicly owned Queensland power assets. We know that privatisation as a general proposition, but particularly in relation to this essential service of electricity, is in the coalition's DNA. Indeed, in 2015, when New South Wales was pondering privatisation of electricity assets, the now Prime Minister promised the people of New South Wales that privatisation would lead to lower prices. Well, I think New South Wales households understand whether or not that promise came to pass. Their household power bills have been going up and up and up under this Prime Minister—both as Prime Minister and as Treasurer—and under the Berejiklian government. Privatisation has not delivered for consumers. We said it never would and, unfortunately, we've been shown to be right. This, of course, is the supreme irony in this debate—that they're seeking to look like they're going after the big energy companies. These are the companies to whom the Liberal Party in South Australia, in Victoria and in New South Wales handed control over this essential service. This is the party that told them: 'We want you to run the market. We know this is an essential service, it's a public good, but we want the private companies to make a profit out of it instead of having it run by state governments.' The supreme irony: the coalition complaining about the behaviour of private companies that you gave control of this essential service to. They're not content with privatisation in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. It's quite clear that they now have Queensland in their sights. They have Tasmania in their sights. They have Western Australia in their sights, a matter that will be of particular interest to you, I'm sure, Deputy Speaker Goodenough. They have Snowy Hydro in their sights, after John Howard wanted to privatise it in 2006. They have the electricity assets of the Northern Territory in their sights as well. Don't take my word for it; it's all over the media now. On The Australian's website there is an article, published only an hour or so ago, 'State-owned energy giants in fed sights', which might have elicited a bit of interest in the state of Queensland, which has had a few debates about privatisation of electricity in recent elections. There is an article in The Courier Mail, published only about half an hour ago, headed 'Queensland political parties united in opposition to the PM's new electricity asset sales threat'. The opposition leader Deb Frecklington—she is from the Liberal Party, I think—has also dismissed the federal government's divestiture threat. She said: I don't support the Federal Government's plan. The people of Queensland have spoken in relation to the sale of assets and there is no appetite for that. She said: The PM's plan is out of touch. It is not just the member for Curtin and a whole range of other members on the coalition backbench who didn't like divestiture version 1 last week or divestiture version 2 this week. People are starting to understand what this is all about. This is legislation that will push up power prices and it's legislation that will continue the agenda that this coalition ideologically has pushed for 25 years: to hand control of this essential service from government into private hands—in Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory, where they haven't been able to do it at the state level, and also in relation to that great national asset Snowy Hydro. This is a stunt by a government that has no energy plan. Three months ago there was this feeding frenzy in the coalition party room by the member for Hughes, by the energy minister, to get rid of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and to dump the National Energy Guarantee. When they finally succeeded—maybe they didn't think they would—they woke up the next morning and thought, 'What do we do now?' The dog that caught the car. 'What do we do now?' And they've come up with this. Really, Bob Menzies would be rolling in his grave. That proud Liberal legacy of market economics is lying absolutely dead after this legislation was proposed. 18:48 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes It's always very pleasing in these debates to follow the member for Port Adelaide, because there are very few members in this place who have the expertise that he does, because he comes from the state of South Australia, where they conducted a grand experiment—this grand experiment that was backed by the member for Port Adelaide from start to finish. That experiment was a 50 per cent renewable energy target. What did it deliver? It delivered that state the highest electricity prices in the world. It takes a special type of incompetence to deliver the highest electricity prices in the world to an Australian state, but that is exactly what they managed to achieve in the member for Port Adelaide's home state. You would think this would have been a lesson. You would think we would have learned and would say: 'Look at South Australia. Look at the terrible mistakes that they made. Look how they punished South Australian residents. Look how record numbers of South Australians had their electricity disconnected.' You'd think they would have learned. But, no, the official policy of the Australian Labor Party is actually to copy that failed experiment and take it nationwide. Everyone in the country should be terrified of the prospect of a Labor Party getting into office and inflicting that failed experiment on everyone. Of course, we know that the other expertise that the member for Port Adelaide has goes to his predictions about the outlook for thermal coal. Only last year, the member for Port Adelaide was standing up on the ABC and telling us all about the rapid decline in thermal coal. In fact he said, 'Indeed, the demand for thermal coal exports from Australia is actually in decline.' What a great prediction, because this year we've had record exports of thermal coal! If the member for Port Adelaide told you it was raining outside, you would need to go and check. He should be employed by the bookmakers at Randwick to give them tips, because then they'd know which horses to lay off. He is wrong time after time after time, and here he is, on this bill, completely wrong yet again. Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that this bill is a litmus test of whose side you are on. On this side, we are on the side of the old-age pensioner who hasn't been able to afford to heat their home in winter and sits in a cold home at some risk to their health. That's whose side we are on. We are on the side of the working family in Western Sydney that struggles and can't afford to turn on the air conditioner on a hot summer's day. We are on the side of the small business owner who has seen their electricity prices increase by 100 per cent under the Labor Party. We're on the side of the tradesmen, the truck drivers and the farmers of this nation. By their opposition to this bill, we know whose side the Australian Labor Party are on. They are on the side of the large energy companies, giving them aid and comfort to engage in anticompetitive activities, to the detriment of Australian consumers. They are on the side of the inner city Greens that cheer and celebrate every time the price of electricity rises. That's whose side the Labor Party is on. They have form in this, because the last time that they were in office they wilfully increased the price of electricity by 100 per cent. They knew that their carbon tax would almost double the wholesale price of electricity, yet they came in here and they voted for it, and we had to fight tooth and nail every single day to get rid of that carbon tax and take the pressure off wholesale electricity prices. Yet they still persist with an energy policy that the Business Council of Australia has said would put a wrecking ball through the economy. That is the policy that they bring to this House, and that is what they argue for. I've heard members on the other side during this debate say how terrible a divestiture power is and how much of a sovereign risk it is. Divestiture powers have been part of the competition law or antitrust law in the USA for over 100 years. They go back to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890—not 1990; 1890. The home of free-market capitalism, the USA, has divestiture powers. Anyone who comes in here and says that divestiture powers are something you have in a Marxist, Venezuelan economy simply does not know what they're talking about. We have seen members of the Labor Party celebrate that Marxist, Venezuelan economy. Many members of the Labor Party signed an invitation for none other than Hugo Chavez to come to Australia and preach how wonderful his Marxist policies were. That's where the Labor Party stand. We are doing nothing more than taking a divestiture power that has been in the United States of America for over 100 years and applying it to a very narrow section of the economy, our electricity sector. The idea that a divestiture power somehow or other harms shareholders is not borne out by the historical facts. The most famous case of divestiture in the USA was Standard Oil. In 1911 Standard Oil was broken up into 34 separate companies. What happened? If you were a shareholder, previously you had one share in Standard Oil; after the divestiture, you had 34 shares, one in each of the 34 separate companies. History has shown that, very quickly after Standard Oil was broken up into those 34 different companies, one share in 34 was worth a lot more than just one share in Standard Oil. This idea that it is somehow or other taking away assets or government confiscation of assets is something that shows that people have no idea what they are talking about. Yet they come in here and wax on about sovereign risk. The greatest sovereign risk that this nation faces is the possible election of a Labor government. The second greatest sovereign risk that this nation faces is internationally uncompetitive electricity prices. Unless we have competitive electricity prices in this nation, manufacturing businesses across the entire economy will not invest, yet we have a Labor Party whose policies deliberately intend to increase the price of electricity. Divestiture powers are also a feature of UK competition. Why are such powers needed here in Australia? We have seen what happened to electricity prices in South Australia when they chased the Northern Power Station out of town. The result was substantial rises in the wholesale price of electricity. We saw the same thing in Victoria where the Hazelwood Power Station, though being old, was chased out of town by the tripling of coal royalties. When Hazelwood closed down, we saw an 80 per cent increase in the wholesale price of electricity. Although that was bad for consumers, that was great news for all the big electricity companies. If you are in an industry where the market price for what you are selling, or for the service or goods that you are supplying to that market, increases 80 per cent, it's happy days. While consumers were harmed by the closure of Hazelwood, every other electricity generator in the country was able to make hay and to make record profits at the expense of pensioners, hardworking Australian families and small-business owners. We have a situation coming up where the Liddell Power Station will quite possibly close in 2022. AGL told us that it has no value. They value it at zero. That's why they need to close it down, because it has no value, yet we find out that they knocked back an offer from a competitor to buy Liddell for $250 million. A quarter-billion-dollar offer was on the table, and they said no, because it's worth more to them to close it down. Why is that? Because they have such a dominant position in the market. They have such a large market share that by closing Liddell down they can keep the wholesale prices inflated and they can make more profits at the end of the day through higher wholesale prices from their other assets. That, by any definition, is anticompetitive conduct. If our competition laws are not strong enough to catch that anticompetitive conduct, they need to be amended. I've had long arguments with the chairman of the ACCC. Under our existing competition laws, I thought there was a strong case to take action against the possible shorting of supply that was being proposed. The chairman of the ACCC said he didn't believe the current laws were strong enough. That's why these provisions are needed. They would be no different to the provisions in some other countries. Look at the provisions of the Sherman act in the USA, where a per se violation is a breach of the Sherman act: … these are violations that meet the strict characterization of Section 1 … A per se violation requires no further inquiry into the practice's actual effect on the market or the intentions of those individuals who engaged in the practice. Conduct characterized as per se unlawful is that which has been found to have a "'pernicious effect on competition' … Such conduct "would always or almost always tend to restrict competition and decrease output." That is why we need to ensure that we have such provisions. For an essential service like electricity, if a generator decides to decrease their output to raise prices to the detriment of consumers, we need divestiture powers similar to those in the home of free-market capitalism, the USA. What about under the UK competition law? How would such shorting of the market go there? Under section 18(2) of the UK Competition Act, it says conduct may constitute an abuse of a dominant position if it consists of: (b) limiting production … to the prejudice of consumers. If we have electricity retailers in this country limiting production to the prejudice of consumers, we need provisions to say that is anticompetitive, and with a threat of divestiture—just as they have in the USA and in the UK. While we're on the subject of a 45 per cent emissions reduction target, I would hope someone from the Labor Party would explain to us what they are going to do in the transport sector. What are you going to do in the transport sector to get those emissions reductions? What plans do you have that you are not telling the Australian public? What plans do you have that you are hiding? We know what it was last time. We know a carbon tax of $135 was recommended by the Climate Change Authority to reach Labor's target. That would push the price up at the bowser for petrol and diesel by 40c a litre. I hope the member would at least no longer hide and would tell us what the Labor Party are going to do— (Time expired) 19:04 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland Ladies and gentlemen, we just saw the future of the Liberal Party: the member for Hughes, the model of a modern Liberal; the man that the moderates in New South Wales saved; a man who his own branches clearly don't want and haven't wanted for the last two elections—otherwise they wouldn't have needed intervention. I like the man personally; he's always been very civil to me and my family, and I appreciate that. Unfortunately, I repudiate everything he stands for, because he stands for climate change denialism and he stands for reactionary politics of the worst sort. That would be fine if he were just an eccentric member of the crossbench, maybe in the Senate with the hodgepodge over there, but he's driving climate change and energy policy in this country. The member for Hughes, the member for Warringah and the rest of their allies in the Liberal Party have dictated so much policy in this country around energy and climate change, and that is a great tragedy, because that is a betrayal of future generations. Ms Swanson 264170 It's not a force for good. Mr CONROY 249127 It is not a force for good, as the member for Paterson so eloquently put it. This is a litmus test, as the member for Hughes put it. The energy and climate change debate is a litmus test in this country, and it's a litmus test that the coalition have failed for 10 years. I can't work out who's worse in the Liberal Party party room, the 50 per cent who deny the science of climate change or those of the 50 per cent who accept it but just give in to the climate change deniers, who aid and abet those people who have set the course of Australia back so much over the last 10 years, who have betrayed our nation's future. I don't use that word lightly. 19:06 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2018, which will amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to define what energy market misconduct is. It defines prohibited misconduct by creating prohibitions in three areas: retail pricing, contract liquidity and wholesale bids and conduct. There is a common thread running through all of Australia, all households and all businesses large and small. They include dairy farmers; primary producers; processing factories in flour, milk and beef; irrigators; timber mills; hotels; restaurants; hairdressers—any small business, you name it—smelters; sugar mills; and flour mills. It is the whole spectrum of Australian industry. They are all crying out for lower electricity costs because we have a high-cost economy; we have high wages; and the prohibitively high cost for electricity is driving people and families out of business. The ACCC inquiry into retail pricing of electricity has identified that the market is misfiring; it's malfunctioning; it's broken. They identified that retailers are taking advantage of a lot of customers who are confused and disengaged. They have so many complex offers on the table that they don't know which one is best. Competition is also being restricted. Dominant players choose not to offer financial contracts in some instances, which stops new entrants into the retail market. The ACCC say there is conduct that is undermining the operation of the wholesale market as well. To put things in perspective, the Australian Energy Regulator has identified a massive difference in the lowest market price available in different areas. They are much, much lower than standing offers, which are offers that people are on and which they just roll over and over. For instance, in New South Wales, there could be a difference of $411 per year between the lowest household market offer and the standing offer; for a business, it could be a difference of $2,582 between a standing offer and the best market offer. In South Australia, it's even worse. There could be a difference of up to $832 between a household standing offer and the best market offer, and for businesses it could be $3,500. That's why we need to address this misconduct. There is a crying need to correct the energy market's behaviour. This bill creates several initiatives. It creates three prohibitions, as I mentioned. In the retail pricing market, there's a prohibition against retailers who fail to reasonably pass through sustained and substantial supply chain cost savings. For instance, if the wholesale price goes down substantially, it should be passed on by the retailer. In the contract liquidity part of the market when entrants are trying to enter new markets, like in South Australia, where 80 per cent of the market is controlled by three operators, they can't get swaps and cap contracts so that they can go in there and be competitive in the retail market. They are denied it by the energy retailers who are also energy producers. This prohibition will make that not possible. There will be systems in place to correct that. In the wholesale market, the ACCC has also identified misbehaviour. In the bidding market, in the short-term market and in the spot market, generators are restricting supply by not bidding or only popping in later in the bidding so that they get a better return overall for other parts of their asset profile. This bill also introduces a graduated and tailored set of remedies, which are in a structured fashion. It allows the ACCC to get better access to records and pricing so that it can analyse them. Once the ACCC gets access to this information it can see if misconduct or prohibited conduct is happening and then issue notices. If that behaviour is confirmed, the producer of the energy or the retailer in the contracting section has in the first instance 21 days when a notice is issued, and then it steps up to 45 days notice. If there is no response, they can move on to the so-called big stick, which is divestment. A lot of people on the other side made out that this is a pattern of behaviour that is against the principles of a free market. I reassure the House that that comment is based in ignorance, because other free market economies, like the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the European Union and Canada, have divestiture powers in their legislation. In fact, in Australia there are divestiture powers that the ACCC can enforce, but that is usually in mergers and acquisitions. In the EU there are definitely divestiture powers in article 7 of the Treaty on the European Union. In the USA we have the Sherman act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, which have been there since 1890 and 1914 respectively. It was these powers that they used to break up the monopoly of AT&T in the 1980s and allow other companies to enter the telecommunications market in the USA. In the UK they have the Competition Act and the Enterprise Act. They were used to split Gatwick Airport from Heathrow Airport, because there was a monopoly in the airport market of the biggest city in Europe. It was a great boon to competition and it made airport fees much more affordable. So, as I said, there are stepped increases in the process before we arrive at divestiture orders. I will take you through some of that process. Basically, the ACCC has to make a determination and issue a notice. The corporate involved has a chance to analyse. It has 45 days. There is toing and froing for another 45 days and then there's a decision by the ACCC and a recommendation to the minister. Then it goes off to a federal court for judicial review and enforcement. But it can't just be a willy-nilly referral. As I said, they have to meet certain criteria. There has to be more than just high prices; there has to be intent. There has to be quite obvious malfeasance with the intent to restrict competition and to mislead, and it has to be proven. People who are saying that divestiture is anticompetitive and draconian are really out of step with reality. As I said, many of the advanced economies in the rest of the liberal, democratic world have had these powers for years and years. They use them sparingly, but it acts as a big deterrent for anticompetitive behaviour. We're all familiar with the closure of Hazelwood and Liddell. The situation, for those that understand the market, was that there was a massive shortage of supply, which drove prices up. The wholesale price went up in Victoria dramatically on the closure of Hazelwood. A lot of the big market operators in this country are both generators and retailers. By manipulating the market rules, they can get away with shorting the market. Over the whole market where they have other assets, they will get a better return from them by shorting the market. That's the sort of behaviour that the ACCC and the regulator will be looking at. It's only then that they will be taking that stepwise function. There are financial penalties as well, well before you get to the major, big-stick option of divestment: the ACCC issues warning notices; there's an infringement notice; and there are then civil penalties that can be up to $10 million, three times the value of the total benefit attributable to the conduct or—a rather large one—10 per cent of the annual turnover of the corporation in the 12 months before the conduct occurred. It will allow the ACCC to issue injunctions. If they see behaviour that is anticompetitive, restricting supply to the detriment of customers downstream or the eventual retail customer, they can issue injunctions. Corporations must contract with other entrants who are trying to get into the market so that the swaps and caps part of the market can't be closed down to new entrants. There has to be evidence of gaming the system for all of these measures to be enacted. It's not based on market share. The divestment big stick is only the last and the most serious way to control bad market behaviour. Some other countries do have divestment based on market share alone. But through this legislation there has to be evidence and that graduated, stepwise process through contract orders, remedial action and fines and then—and only then, if it's more than just a basic prohibition order and it's an aggravated order—you can move on to divestiture. Here we are, trying to get prices down. We have done this because there is evidence for it; the ACCC inquiry is rock solid in its recommendations. We also want to do what we have said we will do—and we're getting responses already—and that is to get a default price. Regarding market offers and standing offers, there are major discrepancies. But, due to the work of the coalition government, we have pointed out this evidence that the Australian Energy Regulator has identified, and many of the energy companies have already announced a drop in their standing offer prices. We are working on that. It's not a grant; it's an initiative so that people will invest in base-load power. We can't have targets of 50 per cent renewable energy, as the international energy organisation has pointed out in its publications recently. The head of the organisation in Australia, on the front page of The Australian, is talking about the integration of renewables. Having an energy mix for renewables is all well and good, but you've got to realise you've got to almost reverse-engineer the whole grid and distribution network if you're going to have that much renewable coming in intermittently, and rewiring the grid is going to cost an absolute fortune too. So we have to have this legislation so that we can correct the energy market. If it were working in a truly competitive sense, if it were transparent and there weren't gaming of the system or shorting of supply to the detriment of the whole market, or delayed bidding and then coming in late and trying to work the short-term spot market so that cheaper assets get a better return, none of this would be necessary. But it is necessary because it is dysfunctional. There are irrigation complexes that are about to shut down because they can't get people to buy the irrigation— (Time expired) Debate interrupted. BUSINESS 12706 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 12706 19:21 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That standing order 31 be suspended for the remainder of this sitting. Question agreed to. BILLS 12706 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2018 12706

Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2018

Second Reading 12706 19:22 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I'm really pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2018. I want to say a little bit about the process by which this bill has come to the parliament and the fact that Labor members in parliament, and indeed those on the other side of the chamber, are being called on to contribute to this debate with absolutely no proper opportunity to look at the bill, to properly study it, as our constituents would expect us to do, and to form a view about this next iteration in the government's energy policy. I think the public now is completely of the view that there is no better emblem of the chaos and division that divides this government than energy policy, so the absolute mayhem that's preceded the debate and that's brought the bill before us right now is probably not a surprise. It's frustrating, as a member of parliament, to have to engage in these really serious policy issues on these terms—these very rushed debates that we're having on this very important subject. This is probably the single most important issue that faces our country right now. It sits across the things that are really affecting the people who live in my electorate. They're affected by energy costs, which have absolutely skyrocketed under this government's rule, and they're concerned because of the complete failure of those on the other side of the chamber to do anything about climate change. Energy policy is like kryptonite to the people who are sitting on the other side of the chamber. I wonder if the fact that this rush has come on—that suddenly after five years of talking about this we finally have a bill before the parliament, which pretends to deal with some of these issues—is actually not about getting any support from our side of the chamber; it's not to do with the parliamentary process; it's about them, trying to sandpaper and trying to tape over some of the divisions that we've seen erupt many times over the last five years. We've got the Leader of the House, the former Manager of Opposition Business, chattering away down here at the dispatch box. I'm reminded that, when Labor was last in government, the then Manager of Opposition Business would scream blue murder when something was brought before the House that genuinely was urgent. He would say it was an outrage that we didn't have a proper process in place. Well, the public needs to understand that Labor, which occupies almost half of the seats in this chamber, had one hour with the EM to this bill, one hour to absorb the detail of this, before we went through a chaotic and rushed process, with division after division after division, trying to ram this bill through the parliament. I think it is completely unacceptable. It is unacceptable, but it is not unexpected, because that is what we have come to expect from the government, who still, after five years, are flailing around trying to stick together some type of energy policy. And now, after five years of talking about this, they are expecting us to believe that it is unbelievably urgent and not only can it not wait until the next sitting fortnight but it can't wait until tomorrow. I think that is ridiculous. I also want to point out that the bill that is being debated here is actually a different policy to what the government put forward yesterday. So, after five years—and the number of energy policies they have put forward must be in double digits—we have a policy change from yesterday, and now the bill is being rushed through the process. It is a bad process; it is a chaotic process. It very much represents the style of government we have come to expect from those on the other side of the chamber—five years, three prime ministers and innumerable iterations of energy policies. The policy we are debating right now is not the first choice of the government. It is not the second choice of the government. It is probably not the eighth or ninth choice of the government. It might be somewhere around the 10th choice of the government. You can understand that, after going through so many differences of opinion, so many iterations and so many different forms that this will take, the bill we are debating now is a dog's breakfast, it is harebrained, and we don't even really understand where it has come from. It hasn't been through the party room of those opposite. It hasn't been endorsed by the very people who are standing up in this chamber and arguing forcefully for something that they probably haven't even read. That is no way to deal with one of the most important issues facing our country. I mentioned that we have gone on about this for five years, where the government have thrashed around and flailed around and been unable to come up with an energy policy they can stick to. One of the things that have really irritated me—and I know it has irritated a lot of my constituents—is the way expert views have been treated by those on the other side of the chamber. We know that there are a lot of people on the other side of the chamber who don't accept the views of the 97 per cent of climate scientists who believe that climate change is real. I am reminded of the words of the member for Higgins that I think will ring in the ears of Australians right up until the election. She called the government 'a bunch of homophobic, antiwomen climate change deniers'. That refers to a significant group of people who sit opposite us in the parliament who actually don't believe in the science of climate change. That has been reflected in the way that those on the other side of the chamber have dealt with expert opinion as it has come up on this. We can all remember back to when the wonderful Alan Finkel was asked to have a really good look at a root-and-branch renewal of energy policy in Australia and come up with some recommendations—that was to adopt a clean energy target, as I recall. But Australia's Chief Scientist's view is just cast aside because 'experts' like the member for Hughes, on the other side of the chamber, didn't like what they saw there. They were unable to adopt the National Energy Target. I am reminded of the words of Senator Jim Molan, in the other house, who has lost his preselection spot. At the time, he said 'it's a very fluid situation' on the National Energy Guarantee. I think that is understating things somewhat! And what have they come up with now? They have come up with a policy that is so devoid of any sense. We have been reduced now to an ad hoc mix of strange rhetoric. We have a grab bag of ACCC recommendations. We have arbitrary threats of intervention that, as far as I am aware, are not supported by any substantial expert in this field. We've got no report; we've got no proper analysis of what this policy would do to energy prices and to our climate aspirations as a country. And, for God's sake, we have the notion that the taxpayer should bankroll new coal investments in this country. It is just extraordinary to me that any group of sensible people could come up with such a bunch of harebrained things, stick them together and then call it an energy policy. The only conclusion I can draw is that the people who are making these decisions are not very sensible. And it's a completely bizarre approach if the aim of this policy process is to put a kind of conservative stamp on climate and energy policy in Australia, because this is a philosophical nightmare for people who call themselves conservatives. We're left with this absolutely weird thought bubble that really, for the first time, would allow the Australian government to intervene in investments that are being made in the private sector in a way that no expert has recommended. How are we going to end up with good energy policy when the people on the other side of the chamber are asking expert after expert after expert, and all these experts of course come up with the wrong answer, because they can't get recalcitrants like the member for Hughes to sign up to these policies that in some instances Labor has thought are very sensible? So we end up in a place of true crazy; we are in true crazy right now with energy policy. Never in Australia's history has the sort of divestiture power that those on the other side of the chamber are putting forward as an energy policy existed. Never has this existed in Australia before. It is unprecedented. It is possibly unconstitutional. The government should be punished for even putting this forward as a serious option, much less trying to rush it through the parliament in this crazy way that's happened this afternoon. Energy and climate policy is complicated, and that's why it's really important that we bring scientists and experts into the discussion. I want to just note here, regarding the conversation that we're having about this particular proposal that the government's put forward, that I am not aware of anyone outside of the parliament who supports this. The Sky News hosts that the government loves to listen to in the night hours think it's crazy. The people who actually know something about climate science think it's crazy. It is amazing to me that, in trying to find something that sticks these weird factions together in their party room, they've come up with a policy that has united the environment groups and the biggest polluters in the country to say that it's completely nuts. Yet here we are debating a bill that we've had notice about for just over an hour. The coalition's proposal is dangerous. We truly believe that. I heard a couple of those on the other side of the chamber talking about ACCC chairman Rod Sims and the report he wrote about competition in energy policy. For anyone listening to the debate, please know that Rod Sims did not recommend that the government adopt this power. This divestiture power has come out of nowhere. A government member interjecting— Ms O'NEIL 140590 He did not. I'm getting an interjection here. And I do wonder whether those on the other side of the chamber have bothered to look at that report that they invested Australian taxpayer dollars in. If none of our regulators will support it, if climate scientists in this country won't support it, then surely the BFFs of those on the other side of the chamber in big business support it. Surely they must support it. But even then, when we look to the usual suspects who would back in a coalition policy such as this, we are hearing horror from people who represent business in this country. Jennifer Westacott was quoted in The Australian Financial Review yesterday, I think it was, saying: The principle that governments can misuse their power to break up companies sets a dangerous precedent that will deter investment across the economy. This will do nothing to solve high power prices for families and businesses struggling to pay their bills today. It will do nothing to solve high power prices. We had the Australian Industry Group's chief executive, Innes Willox—no particular friend of the Labor party—saying that industry has grave concerns about the powers in this bill. He has instead asked the government to re-embrace the National Energy Guarantee, which I will come to. But before I get to that, Innes Willox said that the energy policy that we are debating today is: … the worst piece of public policy making in a couple of generations. The NEG at least gives us a pathway out. The business community and the energy sector have urged the government to abandon the legislation that we are debating in the chamber today, and I want to quote from a joint statement from the Australian Energy Council, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, the Business Council of Australia, Energy Networks Australia, and the Energy Users Association of Australia. They are scathing when it comes to what is in the bill before us. They talk about the fact that the proposals represent a 'deep and genuine sovereign risk'. We've got Liberals on the other side of the chamber here who are supporting a divestment policy that is described by these people as a genuine and real sovereign risk. Various joint statement makers go on to say: They are inconsistent with best practice for a modern economy, such as Australia's, and were specifically considered and rejected by the ACCC and the Harper Competition Policy Review. If enacted, these powers would cast a pall over investment in all sectors of the Australian economy and threaten the economic attractiveness of a country highly reliant on foreign investment. I just want to give one more brief quote from Jennifer Westacott, who wrote in the Daily Telegraph: Ignoring the advice of the ACCC and instead choosing to head down a path that threatens breaking-up electricity companies will not cut electricity bills. The watchdog itself has called this "extreme" … We're running out of people here. We've got the climate scientists who don't support this. We've got the energy experts who don't support this. We've got big business who don't support it. We've got the usual friends of the coalition in the media who don't support this. But I want to talk now about the Liberals who don't support it. The member for Chisholm, who was until very recently a member of the Liberal Party, has been absolutely scathing. She has noticed the very obvious impact of the bill before us, which is that it won't lower electricity prices. This is a doozy. It's not going to help us meet our climate targets and it's going to do nothing to lower electricity prices. The member for Chisolm says: 'It will drive up cost and prices. The fundamental problem with pricing in electricity is a shortage of dispatchable generation. Who is going to invest in new generation if they are at risk of a divestiture order?' What a sensible question from the member for Chisholm. I also can't finish this debate without mentioning the member for Curtin, who has been a very proud foreign minister of Australia and who has now moved to the backbench. The member for Curtin has been very vocal in this debate, as good Liberals should be, because what is being proposed by those on the other side of the chamber is a dog's breakfast. It is a silly grab bag of things that don't amount to a cohesive policy, and the way that this has been rushed into the parliament demonstrates to me that those on the other side of the chamber know and accept that if this policy were properly exposed to public view and public debate, as it should be, it would be rejected, as I think it will be by Labor. 19:37 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2018. My erstwhile colleague and friend, the former senator Nick Xenophon, has been championing the much-needed divestiture powers for the ACCC for some time. I am so proud to be standing in this place to see the beginnings of his visions being achieved. Jurisdictions comparable to Australia have the power to break up monopolies or oligopolies where this is in the interest of free and fair competition. This is not the radical power that some make it out to be. We only need to look to the United States or, indeed, the UK to see this sort of legislation at work. It is a crucial power that the government needs to wield in the best interests of consumers, and I applaud the government's recognition that the time for this idea has finally come in Australia. Centre Alliance believes that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission should be granted such powers across all market types, not just energy markets. For example, the abuse of market power by supermarkets upon their suppliers, especially upon agricultural suppliers, would be much more self-regulated if the supermarket monsters, as they are so aptly described in Malcolm Knox's book of the same title, knew that divestiture powers hung over their heads as a remedy of last resort. The supermarkets have been squeezing our farmers to the point of threatening the viability and sustainability of entire farming communities. I cannot think of any farmer across the country who would disagree with me that divestiture powers in the supermarket and agricultural supply chain industries would be much welcomed. To give proper due and credit for his foresight, I now quote former Senator Xenophon's additional comments to the Senate inquiry into the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2016: As it currently stands, in rare situations where a market power abuse finding has been made by a Court, the Court can order the company be restrained and also impose a large fine against the company. This is problematic for two reasons: (a) No amount of restraint or fine will bring back to life the hundreds of small businesses that have been wiped out by a large company's misuse of their market power. Once small businesses have failed the market dominance of the big business is entrenched forever. I have witnessed this happen across the Australian business landscape in the grocery, fuel, hardware and liquor sectors. (b) The perpetrators of market abuse can be so large that the fine may well be considered by the offending company as simply a cost of business. A monetary fine does not constrain dominant companies from misusing their market power, because they know they will rarely be caught and, if they are, the short term penalty will not be more than the longer term benefit they have obtained. Senator Xenophon continued by proposing that divestiture legislation should be 'a remedy of last resort' and should also be something where the court, not a minister, has the final say. Again, to quote my former colleague: It makes sense that a Court should have a remedy in its tool kit that makes it impossible for a serious or repeat big business offender to offend again. Divesture would enable the Courts to break up serious or repeat big business offenders who have grown so large their conduct is not sufficiently influenced by Australia's Competition Laws. Former Senator Nick Xenophon had the vision, and the government is finally acting. He understood that the powers needed to reside with the courts and not with the executive. I am pleased to see that, with the bill before us, the government has been persuaded to agree. This is not to say that I don't believe we should have a NEG; I think we should have more than just this power in the parliament. However, this is a very important step. I hope that this is the first step towards a broad set of divestiture power arrangements for the government to act against companies who abuse their market share and abuse Australian consumers. Centre Alliance reserves its substantive position on this bill in the Senate, but, on my rapid and preliminary reading of this bill, I commend the bill and its intent to the House. 19:42 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I'm delighted to stand today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2018, which goes to the heart of the differences between the Liberal-National coalition and the Labor Party. We on this side of the House want to make electricity more affordable and reliable; those on the other side of the House want to introduce a secret electricity tax. We stand by the Australian consumer, small and medium businesses, families, pensioners and students; those opposite stand by big energy companies and big unions. We on this side of the House believe in competition and a fair marketplace; the Labor Party believe in monopoly power and vested interests. We on this side of the House believe in the need to have a balanced energy mix; those on the other side of the House are more than happy to see a catastrophe by taking a wrecking ball to the economy with a 45 per cent emissions reduction target. This bill comes after a long suite of measures have already been introduced, and actions taken, by the Liberal-National coalition with a view to ensuring energy is affordable and reliable. We have, after all, already cut the carbon tax. We reined in the networks. We put more gas into the system, into the market. We increased transparency. We revisited and reinvested in Snowy. We put downward pressure on wholesale prices. These measures have already delivered a reduction in prices, which is why we are so happy: we've got runs on the board. We already have a strong unity of purpose around ensuring that energy prices come down and we have a reliable system. That is also why we are now embarking on a new set of measures that includes introducing a price safety net, introducing a reliability obligation, backing investment in reliable generation and, of course, this bill before the House today, which is all about introducing a big stick against those who wish to price gouge and those who wish to act improperly in the marketplace. What this bill is all about is ensuring that we have legislation in place to penalise companies for misconduct. That is why we are looking at penalising where there are problems in retail, in contract liquidity and in wholesale contracts. We need a retail price prohibition, a contract liquidity prohibition and a wholesale conduct prohibition. Where misconduct is found, there is a graduating level of penalties, as any responsible suite of enforcement measures would typically entail. This includes everything from warning notices through to infringement notices, through to civil penalties, through to Treasurer-issued contracting orders and through to, ultimately, that possibility—in extreme cases of fraud, of dishonesty and of bad faith—of a court-ordered divestiture order coming into being. If that's what this bill represents, it's a fair next question to ask why. Why would we introduce a big stick into this marketplace? Why would we ensure that we can hold those who act improperly to account and penalise them in order to drive their behaviour? All one needs to do is look at how the energy market operates in Queensland, to see how important this piece of legislation is. In Queensland, the Queensland state government generates approximately 70 per cent of all energy in that marketplace. It effectively enjoys a monopoly. We already know that there has been an overinvestment in poles and wires in Queensland. Indicative of a marketplace that risks systemic abuse, there is a guaranteed return—known as weighted average cost of capital, or WACC—of about six per cent on the poles and wires. It is of no surprise, especially given that the Labor Party are in government in Queensland, that there is no state that has had such a dialling up of poles and wires investment as we've seen in Queensland. There is an overinvestment of $7.3 billion. In other words, there's this inherent incentive for the Labor Party in Queensland to keep investing in poles and wires because the more they invest, the more they can get a return. Do you know who they get the return from? They get the return from everyday Queenslanders who are ripped off through their electricity bills. Not only is there an overinvestment that they are taxing Queenslanders for but they are also enjoying that six per cent guaranteed return. That is too high, but there is absolutely no attempt by the Queensland state government to remedy the situation and accept a lower guaranteed return. Furthermore, in Queensland, yet again, there is an act of absolute dishonesty where there is a secret tax. We've seen a drop in wholesale prices in Queensland. Between October and October, one-year wholesale prices went down by 40 per cent, yet that wholesale reduction has not been passed through to the consumer. We have had an enormous heatwave for the last couple of weeks in Queensland, and we have had pensioners who have not been able to put on the air-conditioning units. We have had families who are forgoing certain things in life that most families can enjoy. We have Christmas coming to us, and families are hesitating about putting on the Christmas ham because of the price of electricity. That reduction in wholesale prices has not been passed through to consumers. Lastly, let me make this point about how the Queensland government run their electricity system. They have this inherent scam going on. You would be forgiven for thinking it's a laundering activity, because what they do is say to their state utility, 'State utility, you take on debt.' Then they turn around to the state utility and say, 'Now give me back that debt and call it a special dividend.' All they're doing is funnelling money. They put the debt in the state-owned entity and take it back as a special dividend—but, wait for it; it's not over yet. They also put a 4.8 per cent interest charge on that debt. It's all recovered, of course, through their electricity prices. Who pays for this mismanagement? Who pays for it? It's the average consumer, the average family, the average Queenslander. All it is is a sophisticated scam where the state government enjoy an opaque, complex system, because they believe that they can con the everyday Queenslander. Well, that scam has been broken. The game is up. But it is indicative of the poor behaviour in this system. It is indicative of the type of behaviour that we need to root out, because, if we are going to ensure that the consumer, the Australian, comes first, we can't tolerate this. Of course, big unions are a part of the game. If you look at the unions involved in the Queensland energy sector, collectively, in the 2015-16 financial year, they donated over a million dollars to the Labor Party. It should come as no surprise that the protection racket continues from the Queensland Labor government. Furthermore, you do wonder, whether it be through enterprise bargaining agreements or others, how much they have rorted. And thus I support this bill and look at Queensland as an example for its need. Debate adjourned. Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 12713

Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018

Report from Committee 12713 19:53 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's interim advisory report, incorporating additional comments, on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr HASTIE 260805 by leave—I present to the House the report, which includes the committee's recommendations for amendments to the bill. It is the culmination of more than three days of public hearings and extensive briefings from our security and law enforcement agencies, including top-secret briefings. We heard from oversight agencies, notably the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. We heard from industry stakeholders and civil society groups. The amendments in the report include enhanced oversight provisions for the bill and the narrowing range of offences to which the bill applies. We define key terms such as 'systemic weaknesses' and, of course, we enhance scrutiny and the authorisation process. This report represents bipartisan support for this bill. In closing, I commend the deputy chair, the member for Holt, for his support, the member for Eden-Monaro, and the coalition members on the committee, particularly Senator Jim Molan for his work, and also the secretariat for getting this done in such a short amount of time. 19:54 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt by leave—I will start, on behalf of the Labor members of the committee, by thanking the chair for his stewardship of this inquiry into one of the most complex and difficult bills and reports that have ever been contemplated in this House. On a bipartisan basis, unlike what is the case with some members of the government, I wish to thank him in particular. I'm sure the member for Eden-Monaro would second my sentiments. So thank you, Chair, for your steadfast commitment to bipartisanship, which is essential to keep this parliament and this committee working. And we'll stop the Leader of the House from speaking, which I think probably some people on his own side would like too! Speaking on behalf of Labor in terms of our additional comments, the fundamental responsibility of any government is to ensure the safety of the nation and its people. It is the foundation upon which all other policy aspirations necessarily rest. As a party of government, it's a responsibility that Labor has always upheld. Meeting this responsibility requires coordinated action by parliament and the executive. This has never been truer than over the past two decades, when Australia has faced a diverse range of serious and evolving threats. During this time, the parliament has considered a number of bills that increased the powers and capabilities of our security agencies. With a few limited exceptions, these bills responded to advice from the agencies about the tools they needed to keep Australia safe. Labor has always taken the advice from the security agencies seriously. In line with this, the parliament has passed security legislation in an appropriately considered and expeditious way. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, for those that don't think this, is not a brake on this process; it is an essential part of it. A government's ability to respond to new and evolving threats relies on the public's ongoing faith that our national security laws are appropriate, are proportional and are adapted to the circumstances that we face. The committee's work builds that faith. The public process of authorising and re-authorising laws which the committee undertakes is an essential exercise in democratic accountability. It is an acknowledgement of the potential for new powers to impinge on the fundamental rights and values of Australians. It is also an opportunity to ensure that the resources and powers provided to the agencies are as effective as is possible given the nature of the threat environment. The committee has undertaken this work in a deliberate, sensible and bipartisan way through changing circumstances, governments and Prime Ministers for decades. The work of the committee, I regret to say, has not been assisted by the government's approach to this debate over recent weeks. Labor members are concerned to avoid a continuation of this conduct. It jeopardises the fundamental function the committee serves in our national security apparatus. Labor members, particularly the member for Eden-Monaro and I, would like to thank the Acting Minister for Home Affairs, the Attorney-General—he sets a standard for what consultation should be about rather than what we've seen more recently—for the cooperative and constructive approach he has taken to discussions. We're pleased that the government has acknowledged and responded to a number of serious concerns raised by Labor members of the committee and by the opposition more broadly. Labor members welcome the amendments that have been proposed in the committee's report, including enhancing the oversight provisions, narrowing the range of offences to which the bill applies, defining key terms relating to systemic weakness and vulnerabilities, and adopting enhanced scrutiny and authorisation processes. These amendments make the bill better and they make Australians safer. However, we do not consider that these amendments address all of the problems in this bill. Labor members have moved to progress this bill despite our concerns because of the evidence from law enforcement and security agencies that there is a need for these powers over the Christmas period and because proposed amendments deliver adequate oversight and safeguards to prevent unintended consequences whilst ongoing work continues. We are prepared to take this course of action because of the government's undertaking; we're only prepared to do so because the committee will conduct its inquiry into the bill in 2019, and a separate statutory review will be undertaken by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor within 18 months of the legislation coming into effect. These separate processes provide an opportunity to resolve our ongoing concerns about the bill, with assistance of industry and with the assistance of experts and civil liberties groups, whilst upholding our responsibility to keep Australians safe. This compromise is emblematic of the balancing exercise this committee has undertaken in all of its work over the decades. The government should not walk away from that again. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 12715 NOTICES

Wednesday, 5 December 2018

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

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 12717 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Blair Electorate: Centenary of Armistice 12717 10:00 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Recently I had the honour of driving to Toogoolawah in the northern part of Blair to attend the opening of an exhibit commemorating the Centenary of Armistice. The exhibit titled An End to Conflictwas funded in part through the Blair Armistice Centenary Grants Program and is being hosted by the Somerset Regional Art Gallery, The Condensery, until the end of this week. More than $10,000 from the grants program went towards a fantastic display of period memorabilia, including medals, photographs, letters and uniforms, loaned to the art gallery by local families, and World War I bikes loaned by the well-known Brisbane collector Wayne Norris. They give an insight into life in Australia, particularly the Somerset region, at the outbreak of World War I. The exhibits recognise Somerset's local heroes—men and women who served in World War I. The items displayed are significant to the people of Somerset and surrounds, particularly the ancestors of these heroes. Information about World War I airman Major Roderic Stanley Dallas, born just north of Toogoolawah, is displayed, continuing the sharing of local stories. Also featured are stories about medical pioneer Dr Edith Fox, the Air Aces, the Australian Cycling Corps, Esk Hospital and the Light Horse. The exhibits aim to bring the World War I experience to a younger generation, with many local schools having visited. The Why War paintings by Toogoolawah resident and internationally-recognised artist Merton Chambers were displayed, along with an installation of remembrance poppies collated by artists Christine Just of Karana Downs and Jayne Hodge. The Condensery curated six limited edition prints of works by World War I soldier and artist Tom Cross. The project was kicked off with a commemorative service, themed 'Celebrating a just and secure peace', held in McConnell Park in the grounds of the Toogoolawah War Memorial. I was honoured to join Group Captain Kathleen Pyne from RAAF Base Amberley—the largest defence base in Australia, in the heart of my electorate—and the mayor of Somerset Regional Council, Graeme Lehmann, to unveil a plaque. The Toogoolawah and District History Group, guided by Beryce Nelson, have put on a spectacular display. On Remembrance Day I opened the Lowood RSL subbranch's Centenary of Armistice memorial drive—a 600-metre strip lined with native Australian flora, including Dawson River Weepers and Spirit of Anzac grevilleas. This native flora dedication was also funded by $16,000 from the Blair Armistice Centenary Grants Program. I want to congratulate local schools and the descendants of service men and women who took part in the dedication. I congratulate the local RSL for the work they do and all the RSLs across Ipswich and Somerset who received grants. Swan Electorate: Lathlain Precinct Development Project 12718 10:03 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I rise today to update the Chamber on an announcement I made in my electorate of Swan during the last break. I'm very proud to share with the Chamber that the Morrison Liberal government will invest $4 million to kickstart the redevelopment of the Perth Football Club grandstand at Lathlain oval, as part of the next phase of the Lathlain Precinct Development Project. The government is providing this initial financial support for the project, which will demolish the existing grandstand and build a modern standalone facility for Perth Football Club and the community at Lathlain oval. As everyone in this place is aware, the Liberal-National government has been a strong supporter of the Lathlain development since being elected in 2013, delivering the vital investment that has enabled the development to get underway, including $10 million in 2015 for the community aspects of the West Coast Eagles' new home at Lathlain oval and $3 million investment in 2016 to support the co-location of the Wirrpanda Foundation to assist Indigenous youth. The new Perth Football Club grandstand will ensure that ongoing programs can be delivered and that the club can have an even greater level of community engagement. Most importantly, it will also improve facilities for female players, meaning more women and girls in our community can participate in the great game of Aussie Rules. With the rise in popularity of the AFLW, this is a fantastic part of the project. I'd particularly like to thank the West Coast Eagles and the Perth Football Club for their advocacy and support for this new development. The Lathlain development epitomises the coalition's policy of fostering economic activity, including jobs and growth, through infrastructure investment. This funding commitment, along with the financial support already indicated by the Town of Victoria Park and the West Coast Eagles, will kickstart this development, as the grandstand really is the next step for the Lathlain precinct. I'm confident that the project will better enable clubs from the national competition and the WAFL to be even more closely aligned, to work together in connecting with our local community here in Swan and enhancing both of the clubs. Our project is about ensuring our local kids will have the facilities they need to get out there and enjoy, and to get involved in the best things that sport has to offer. The redevelopment really is the next stage in delivering the Liberals' vision for a world-class sporting precinct in the electorate of Swan at Lathlain park and Optus Stadium, providing every opportunity for our kids to excel. I look forward to viewing the games from the grandstand. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the short time I have left, I'd like to wish you and your family all the best for Christmas, and, to the opposition and to my colleagues on this side of the chamber, Christmas wishes and New Year wishes as well. In particular, I'd also like to thank my staff for all the work they do for me in my electorate. I particularly thank my wife, who is the long-suffering support person for me while I'm away in Canberra. Congratulations to everyone for the Christmas and New Year period. Lalor Electorate: 2018 12719 10:06 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor As 2018 draws to a close, I want to take a few minutes to reflect on the year that has been. It has been a joy once again to interact with residents from all corners of our community and share our local stories in the federal parliament. I want to thank all of those people in our community who do the heavy lifting, building communities out of housing developments. It has been a pleasure engaging with and advocating for countless community groups, sporting clubs and schools, both locally in our community and on the national stage in the federal parliament. It has been an honour presenting Lalor Heroes awards to exceptional volunteers in our community and acknowledging outstanding school students with the prestigious Julia Gillard award. My office has continued to assist residents with federal government matters, and social media has provided me with another avenue to engage with our community and interact on issues of local and national importance. In reflecting on these interactions—both in my office and in social media—I am reminded again of the impact that public policy has on the coherent functioning of our community. I want to thank the Wyndham City Council for their support across the year and for the work that they are doing in our community. But it is disappointing to reflect on how this dysfunctional federal Liberal government has, for the fifth year in a row, neglected our community and the needs of our residents. Most distressing has been the impact of government cuts to Centrelink staff that are very real for thousands of locals who are now forced to wait months for their applications for payments to be processed. I reflect on the botched job of the NBN, which is continuing to fail to deliver the world-class internet that residents in my community expect. It is really disappointing for the new residents who are moving into their new homes to find they have no internet connection. It has been inspiring, though, to work in Bill Shorten's Labor team, to make significant commitments that will make a real, positive impact in our community. This year, Labor has made positive commitments for our community, including: the investment of over $30 million to properly fund our local public schools; universal access to kinder and preschool for three- and four-year-olds, which will have a positive impact on 10,000 children in my electorate; an additional 1,200 permanent Centrelink staff nationwide; a full Medicare rebate MRI for our local public hospital; and an expansion of car-parking facilities at the Tarneit Railway Station. As I reflect on the year that has been, I am again reminded that it is only Labor governments that can and will deliver for our community. On that note, I again congratulate the state Andrews Labor government and thank my state colleagues for their support across this year. Together, we make a difference in people's lives by just having our offices open and attentive and welcoming for the many people who come to us—often, on the worst day of their lives. Road Safety 12719 10:09 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax All of us are inspired by different things, and one of the things that truly inspires me is seeing young people fulfil their potential—typically with high energy, an enormous amount of courage and a lot of pride in what they do. I say that not just as a dad. I say that as somebody who runs a not-for-profit helping young Australians. I say that as an MP who turns up to speech nights and sees a sea of young people, typically at schools, with enormous promise. And I say that as an everyday bloke who goes to the footy and the cricket and sees young people doing their thing. But there's nothing more gut-wrenching than when a young person loses their life. Only a few weeks ago, through schoolies, an 18-year-old lost his life falling from a balcony. But I rise in this Chamber today to talk about Jacob Mabb, a 21-year-old from my part of the world, on the Sunshine Coast, in my electorate. We heard the terrible news only yesterday that Jacob, at just 21, passed away at the RBH—the Royal Brisbane Hospital. He had been flown out of Bali, having incurred dreadful and, as it turned out, terminal brain injuries after a motorcycle accident. LifeFlight was able to evacuate him. As you could imagine, his parents, Steve and Julie, are struck with grief at this loss. On his death, Jacob donated his liver and also his kidneys, and three lives have already been saved. It's times like these that we in this place, who rightly debate public policy, can never forget the importance, simply, of life, particularly that of young ones. Kate Fitzsimons established a foundation, having lost her sister Nicole in a motorcycle accident. As she says very clearly, 'Young people, enjoy your life, but there's nothing more important than keeping safe.' So, safety first! God bless Jacob. Save South Head Campaign 12720 10:12 Dr PHELPS 008Z0 Wentworth South Head in Sydney Harbour National Park is an oasis that attracts visitors from around the world to enjoy walking trails with stunning harbour views, abundant natural beauty and tranquil surroundings. The New South Wales government is considering a plan to give six historic buildings stretching across South Head to a single commercial operator for two function centres and accommodation, which will operate seven days a week. The lease will run for at least 40 years. This national park is enjoyed by thousands of Australian and international visitors each day. Many visitors are unaware that Camp Cove Beach marks the site of the first contact in Sydney Harbour between Captain Phillip and the Gadigal people. Handing this site to a commercial function operator with no commitment or plan to activate the important cultural history of this land or to improve public access and visitation to this national park is a lost opportunity. While North Head, on the opposite side of Sydney Harbour, and Centennial Park and Bondi Beach, in my Wentworth electorate, have been listed on the national heritage register, South Head has no such protection. Stretching from Camp Cove Beach to The Gap, the Gap Bluff development, under this plan, will cater for more than 400 guests daily, with functions running in two venues from 8.30 until midnight, seven days a week. Walking tracks will become parking lots, views will be blocked by vehicles, and public access to this precious parkland will be restricted. The recently announced Manly to Bondi walk, which will make Sydney Harbour one of the world's great walks, would run right through South Head and have to contend with functions. Extra traffic entering the venue and in the already gridlocked local streets will impede emergency vehicle access to The Gap and security operations at the HMAS Watson naval base. Despite the potential of these venues to bring 3,000 extra people into the national park each week, there is no plan from developers or government to increase public transport, policing, noise control or security for the naval base. During the recent by-election campaign, I committed to doing everything I can to work with the Save South Head campaign and Woollahra council, which has rejected this proposed development, to pressure the New South Wales government to protect this invaluable historic green space for the enjoyment of all. Part of that plan should include listing South Head on the national heritage and New South Wales state heritage registers and ensuring a comprehensive community consultation process about plans for the site that includes the Indigenous community, historians, local residents, walking groups and the Navy, which operates the HMAS Watson on this headland. Queensland: Bushfires 12721 10:15 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Last week my electorate of Flynn was devastated by extreme bushfires. I'm glad to say that with an ease in weather conditions and rainfall overnight, the fires have been extinguished. Curtis Island and the national park at Blackdown are still burning but are under control. Sadly, one man has died in relation to these fires. Our thoughts are with his loved ones at this difficult time. Mr George Bird was killed while clearing firebreaks when he was struck by a tree. Numerous other structures, vehicles and farming machinery have been lost. Nine houses have gone. Thankfully, many homes have been saved by the good work of the fire brigades, both rural and urban, and now people are returning to their homes to see the devastation. Power has been mostly restored to the regions, but it continues to be difficult days for Queenslanders. My thanks go to Ergon and Telstra for prompt action when the call was made. I acknowledge the hard work of the men and women fighting these fires, the volunteers and those who travelled interstate to help, who came from each state in Australia and the territories to provide assistance to our hardworking locals. Almost 500 fighters came from across Australia to assist them. I commend the efforts of all the career and volunteer emergency services personnel who have been working tirelessly over the last week with very little sleep. Our emergency services are once again showing their professionalism and dedication in the face of very, very difficult conditions. Approximately 40 millimetres of rain fell overnight, which came as a blessing. Please look out for the vulnerable members of our community such as children and the elderly. These people must be looked after as the recovery takes place. It is a terrible situation to lose all your possessions. Emergency Management Australia and Australian Defence Force liaison officers are on hand at the Queensland state disaster coordination centres. The Australian government continues to work closely with the Queensland authorities to provide assistance. We are now entering recovery mode. Our Commonwealth Defence forces have been on stand-by to provide assistance, ready to aid Australian authorities in their efforts to manage this situation. The Commonwealth is unable to deploy Defence assets without the prior approval of the Queensland state government. Despite this, the Queensland state government has made no request for assistance from the ADF. I urge the Queensland state government to accept assistance for the clean-up after these extreme fires. Townsville: Employment 12721 10:18 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert Townsville has always had a strong public sector presence. We are the city that is proud to have the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and CSIRO. Our inner CBD would flourish because of the Australian Taxation Office workers, Department of Veterans' Affairs staff and Defence. But now, under the architect of the cuts, former Treasurer and now Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Townsville's public sector and economy are under attack. As a nation we should have the best and brightest working in our departments. We should be proud to have experts in their areas working for our government, providing world-leading research and services and ensuring that, as a nation, we are always progressive on the issues affecting our people and country. We should not be selling these skills off to the Morrison government's private sector, labour hire mates. It is an absolute disgrace that labour hire has flourished under the LNP government. They should hang their heads in shame. The fact that they are proud to outsource and privatise, and they're proud to cut jobs in regional Queensland, is a shame. In Townsville the LNP government have cut 149 jobs from the ATO. The relocation of the Royal Australian Air Force's 38 Squadron King Air Fleet from Townsville to East Sale, Victoria, lost 40 aviation jobs. There were 50 fewer Defence staff in June 2017 than there were in December 2012; 19 jobs have gone from CSIRO; 10 jobs have been lost from the Townsville APS Defence support staff. Cuts of 50 per cent have seen 30 jobs lost in regional Queensland Customs staffing from Gladstone to Thursday Island, including Townsville. Five jobs were lost at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. I do not want to put our public sector into private hands. This is an absolute disgrace, and the Morrison government should hang its head in shame. Liberals seem to be hell-bent on destroying our public sector, and it is only Labor that will support our public sector. A Labor government will abolish the Liberals' arbitrary average staffing level cap and strengthen capacity and capability within the Australian public sector. The ASL cap has become counterproductive, leading to a hollowing out of the public services and sparking a blowout in spending on contractors and consultants. By abolishing the cap, agencies will be allowed to set their staffing levels based on operational requirements. Agencies' overall funding levels will remain capped, meaning there will be no impact on the budget. The Prime Minister's own department has described the ASL cap as 'a blunt instrument' and said: Through removing ASL caps, agencies may have greater flexibility to recruit specialist staff at a reduced cost. Australians expect and deserve quality services and value for money, and our plan will deliver both. This is a great start by Labor, but we need to do more. We need more DHS jobs and we need ATO jobs. Telecommunications 12722 10:21 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I spend a lot of time listening to my constituents, and some topics come up time and time again. One of those topics, maybe even the No. 1 issue, raised with me is mobile telecommunications or, more to the point, the lack thereof. Our Mobile Black Spot Program has delivered a whopping 867 new mobile phone towers and coverage to nearly 32,000 more homes and businesses Australia-wide. Earlier this year, the government announced round 4 of the program, with a commitment of $25 million to address more regional and remote black spots. This is underway at the moment, and I've been working with my local communities and local councils to identify priority locations. But I received a letter from a community member about the lack of mobile service, and it really exemplifies the issue that so many communities in my electorate of Barker, and, indeed, right around the country, are experiencing. With the chamber's indulgence, I intend to read an excerpt of it. It said: The Peebinga area has grain and sheep producers and two Major irrigators with a large work force. At Peebinga we are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to being competitive in the grain, wool and lamb markets, not being able to contact agents or traders on time can be extremely costly, this is a real issue for us, not being able to use mobile phone or data services puts us at a disadvantage when we can't make or receive phone calls, text messages or emails when we are at work on the property, waiting for someone to call you back on our landline is so non-productive. When we have a break down or an emergency situation we have to make a dash for one of our land lines so we can make the appropriate calls to get the issue attended too. This is unproductive for modern farming enterprises and is certainly unproductive for our farm which supports several families. The Brown's Well Highway continues to grow in use as it is a north south freight route, and now is a designated road train route, the poor condition of the road makes mobile communication very important for heavy freight and local traffic users. Similar stories are told to me around the electorate. It's about productivity and safety on our farms, productivity and safety on our roads and highways. In fact, just on the productivity front, the report tabled yesterday by the minister makes a strong case for the benefits of increased digital connectivity for the regions. Economic modelling shows that digital agriculture could increase the gross value of Australian agricultural production by a whopping $20.3 billion—a 25 per cent increase over 2014-15 levels. We're not going to solve this problem with ad hoc funding rounds—not one, not two, not three, not four—and that's why I'm fighting for a rolling program within government. Let's continually invest in mobile telecommunications in our regions, because investment in a rolling program is a downpayment on a $20 billion national productivity dividend. Brand Electorate: Workplace Relations 12723 10:24 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand Over the next few days, as members head back to their electorates and their families, it's important to reflect on the year that has been and the year to come. Earlier this year I had the privilege of visiting Alcoa workers at a difficult time in their working lives. In Western Australia, Alcoa workers had to fight over 52 days and across five sites, including in my electorate, in Kwinana, to maintain their current working conditions. I was really pleased to visit the picket line several times, once with the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten. That dispute has been resolved. I thank the Alcoa workers for their patience and their dignity on the picket line and I wish them the very best over Christmas. As I speak here today, there is an ongoing dispute at the BP refinery in Kwinana. I remain hopeful this issue can be resolved before Christmas and that a loyal workforce will maintain their current workplace conditions. I know this dispute is causing considerable anxiety in the workforce, and no-one wants that at any time of the year, let alone at this time, in the lead-up to Christmas. BP has been at the heart of the economic development of Western Australia since it commenced operations in the 1950s. But it has to be noted that the success of BP in WA is only possible because of the long-serving, skilled and loyal workforce that, for decades, has played an integral role in the communities of Kwinana and Rockingham. I do not support global companies like BP exploiting the power imbalance between a massive global corporate employer and a local, loyal, long-serving workforce seeking to maintain conditions. It smacks of greed and it has to stop. If we are lucky enough to be elected to government by the people of Australia in the election next year, a Shorten Labor government will change the law to redress the imbalance in bargaining power between workers, and their unions, and employers. These changes will ensure future enterprise agreement negotiations will be conducted fairly, without the threat of cancelling enterprise agreements, while reducing the risk of discussions escalating into extreme action. We hope that is avoidable. I wish the workers at BP the very best in the coming months and I do hope this matter can be resolved. It's a tough time of year, of course, at Christmas. We need to acknowledge the people in our communities who need help and thank all those non-government organisations that help those in the community who need it most. In the short time I have remaining, I want to thank my staff in the electorate office of Brand. They've gone through a difficult time. Recently we've had to move office and have had significant issues with that move. I want to thank all my staff for their remarkable good humour and their patience with the matters we are dealing with. You're a terrific bunch and I really thank you for your loyalty, for all your help and for your dedication to the people of Brand. It's very important. Thank you. Merry Christmas! Hinkler Electorate: Welfare Reform 12724 10:27 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to discuss with the House the cashless debit card rollout trial for my electorate of Hinkler and, once again, the activities of the Greens. This legislation was passed through both the House and the Senate, and the trial will commence in my electorate, between Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, in the New Year. It will affect some 6,000 people. And yet here we have Senators Waters and Siewert once again looking to create trouble. Right through this process we have had nothing from them but misinformation, scaremongering and fear. Now they want to continue that, even though the legislation has been through the House and the Senate and it will be implemented. So I say to the Greens: actually get on side with something that works. They should listen to Nicole. Nicole gave a presentation to the Minderoo forum in Western Australia in recent weeks. To use her own words, when she found that she was being put on the card in a trial in the Goldfields, she 'hated' the government, she 'hated' the local MP, Rick Wilson. But she is now one of the card's greatest advocates in her community, because, for her, it made a substantial difference to her life. That is why we are doing this. It is a tough policy. I've said it many times before. Once again I say to Senators Larissa Waters and Rachel Siewert: stop trying to cause trouble and actually get up there and provide information. If the people in my electorate want the correct information, it will come from the Department of Social Services. They have already received correspondence from them. There have been many levels of consultation. There have been more meetings in recent weeks. They have been on the ground for over a year. The Department of Social Services is the source of facts, not misinformation and scaremongering, which is all we seem to get from the Greens, in particular. There were public meetings in November, and correspondence has gone to every single individual who will be in the cohort. It is a different cohort to the other trial sites, so the Greens need to stop saying to people that they are included when they are not. It will be applied to those who are 35 and under if they are on Newstart, the parenting payment single, the parenting payment partnered or youth allowance other. This is about trying to ensure that the money they are provided from the taxpayer in their time of need is not spent on alcohol, gambling or, potentially, illicit substances. It does that by controlling the amount of cash that is available—and it works. There have been trials in WA in place for over two years. We heard from community leaders in those areas who said that it is one of the greatest things they've ever done for their community. In fact, one of the quotes from one of the Aboriginal community leaders in WA, at the Minderoo forum, was: 'Was it very difficult? Was it tough? It was absolutely tough. It was really, really difficult. Would we do it again if we had to? Yes, we would'—because it has made such a difference to their community. I look forward to the same changes in the electorate of Hinkler. Holt Electorate: Centenary of Armistice 12725 10:30 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I want to commend my local community, particularly with respect to the way in which various organisations have celebrated and commemorated the Centenary of Armistice on Remembrance Day. Ours is an outer suburban community, with a lot of those who have served in our armed forces to keep us safe. I deal with them through organisations like the Young Veterans association and other organisations as well, particularly the local RSLs with whom I have a great local relationship. I'd like to commend them for the way in which they conducted their services on Remembrance Day, particularly commemorating the Centenary of Armistice. I also want to commend our young people who turned up in droves to celebrate and commemorate Remembrance Day. It's very important that we transmit the meaning and significance of Remembrance Day to our young people. They're the standard bearers for our next generation. In doing so, I would like to commend the RSLs for the extensive and ongoing work they do with our local young people. I would also like to commend our young people. Our young people do get a lot of negative press. We see it in The Age or the Herald Sun, but they are good young people. We have many young people in our area. Many young families have settled in our area. I really am very proud of our young people, particularly when I see them turn out in such large numbers and treat these services so reverentially, which they did. We had Centenary of Armistice grants, and three were awarded. One in particular that I want to talk about is the $28,210 awarded to the Provenance Artists Incorporated. They commissioned local artists to paint commemorative paintings for the Holt Armistice 100 Year Fine Art Exhibition. This took place on 27 and 28 October at the Narre Warren Mechanics Institute Hall. I thank Calvin Bell and Judy Owen and members of the Provenance Artists for organising these paintings, transmitting the meaning of Armistice and what it means to the local community. These paintings were vivid evocations of a time which had a profoundly significant impact on Australia and Australian history. These paintings really do justice to what the Australian community went through. I'd like to commend the Provenance Artists for the work they've done to continue to honour our service men and women and the sacrifices they made in the First World War. Pitch@Palace 12725 10:33 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I'm delighted to take this opportunity to acknowledge a wonderful program that's encouraging innovation and entrepreneurs—the Duke of York's Pitch@Palace. Pitch@Palace guides, helps and connects entrepreneurs and early-stage businesses with potential supporters, including CEOs, influencers, mentors and business partners. It was an honour to attend the Australian final at the Queensland State Library last Friday night where 41 up-and-coming Australian businesses pitched their ideas for an amazing array of innovative products and services in front of the Duke. These forward thinkers joined the worldwide Pitch@Palace alumni, which has around 729 businesses that have achieved an astonishing 96.5 per cent survival rate. There's no doubt that the Pitch@Palace model is working well, and His Royal Highness the Duke of York was clearly excited and enthusiastic about the calibre of the innovative Australian start-ups on display. Pitch@Palace is another great opportunity for our entrepreneurs to take their products and services global, so it was not surprising to me that Bond University, which is in the heart of my electorate, plays an important role in Pitch@Palace Australia, because they too have a unique model for success in ensuring graduates have the skills they need to excel in their chosen fields, especially in business. Bond University hosted the Queensland final of Pitch@Palace, and Vice-Chancellor and President, Tim Brailsford, was the MC of the national final. Impressively, more than one entrepreneur with Bond University links made the national final. These included university alumnus Joseph Marcus, whose AirBands training device restricts blood flow to build muscle strength, and Bond University Assistant Professor of Aboriginal Health, Clinton Schultz, whose company, Sobah, brews non-alcoholic craft beer using Indigenous ingredients. Both report a keen interest in their companies as a result of taking part. I want to congratulate and acknowledge the winners, Powerwells and OncoRes. Both national winners will now get to pitch their businesses at the global final of Pitch@Palace at St James's Palace in London later this month. We wish them well, and I look forward to hearing more about their endeavours. Australians have done particularly well at Pitch@Palace. Last year's global winner was actually Gold Coast surf industry legend Nev Hyman, whose company, NevHouse, turns recycled plastic into affordable cyclone-proof housing. Australians are amongst the boldest thinkers in the world. In my role as Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, I'm constantly impressed by the innovative things being done by Australians. The Liberal-National government is supporting many of those innovators through our Entrepreneurs' Program. We have seen examples of crossover where those being supported through our government programs are also impressing people around the world through Pitch@Palace. I congratulate everyone involved, especially the crew from Bond University. Whitlam Electorate: Stephen Jones Active Citizen Awards 12726 10:37 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam Each year I provide an award, the Stephen Jones Active Citizen Award. The idea is to recognise students from my electorate who constantly display the ideals of social justice and play an active part in their school community and their broader community. I like to go along to the award ceremonies to present it. Unfortunately, the sitting pattern of parliament means that I won't be able to get to most of the ceremonies this year, so I'd like to acknowledge 43 students from public and private schools throughout the electorate, including Madison Rosser of Albion Park Public School, Dakota Skillen-Jones of Albion Park Rail Public School, Melisa Sali from Amity College, Charlize Middleton from Avoca Public School, Clementine Hornsey from Balarang Public School, Kaylie Adams from Barrack Heights Public School, Dean Nicollini from Berkeley Public School, Nelson Maltby from Berkeley West Public School, Tika Conway from Bowral Public School, Daisy MacDonald from Burrawang Public School, Ayah Marmar from Cringila Public School, Alexander Govier from Glenquarry Public School, Chelsea Anstiss from Kangaloon Public School, Kayla Harris from Koonawarra Public School, Chelsea James from Lake Illawarra South Public School, Sarah Paananen from Moss Vale Public School, Mia Attard from Mount Brown Public School, Jake Whitmarsh from Mount Terry Public School, Ethan McManus from Mount Warrigal Public School, Noah Skippen from Nazareth Catholic Primary School, Jennessa Morley from Oak Flats Public School, Kaleb Morris from Primbee Public School, Ginger Cummins from Shellharbour Public School, Bobby Kynes from St John's Catholic Primary School, Chloe Bloomfield from St Paul's Catholic Primary School, Remy Hagan from St Thomas Aquinas Catholic Primary School, Oliver Woodburn from Tudor House, Mackenzie Hayward from Tullimbar Public School, Asher Horan from Warilla North Public School, Sherre Bates from Warilla Public School, Mason Stephenson from Windang Public School, Destiny Matesic from Albion Park High School, Alana Sargood from Bowral High School, Molly Chapman from Dapto High School, Alexander Foreman from Kanahooka High School, Brittany Skeen from Lake Illawarra High School, Makayla Jones from Moss Vale High School, Natalie Mansfield from Oak Flats High School, Audrey Scheu from Warilla High School, Lachlan Dalrymple from Tangara School, Darcy Howard from Chevalier College, Kasey Ashburner from Corpus Christi Catholic High School, and William Doyle from St Joseph's Catholic High School. Standouts include Molly Chapman, who's a constant campaigner for more efficient climate change policies and renewable energy; Kasey Ashburner from Corpus Christi, who travelled to Rwanda to carry out aid work in villages that are still suffering from the Rwandan genocide; and Makayla Jones from Moss Vale, who raised over $4,000 for New South Wales farmers and initiated support groups for Moss Vale students. They all deserve recognition. I'm sorry I can't be with them, but I'd like to pay tribute to them in the parliament today. Page Electorate: Cabbage Tree Island Public School, Evans Head 12727 10:40 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Cabbage Tree Island is a wonderful community, and the school is an integral part of it. This Saturday, Cabbage Tree Island Public School will celebrate 125 years since it was established in 1893. It is one of a very few 100 per cent Aboriginal-enrolled schools in New South Wales. The school started as a small building on Cabbage Tree Island, with Mr Griffin being the first teacher. After 125 years, the school has come a long way. Former students include world-renowned artist Digby Moran, cricketer Bob Anderson, who famously bowled out Sir Don Bradman, and Amanda Roberts, who played touch football for Australia, just to name a few. This Saturday will see an expected 1,000 former students, staff and families come together, with dancing, storytelling, jumping castles, mechanical bulls and lots of exhibits. The year 3-6 class have co-written and composed a song called 'We Are Here' with One Vision Productions and the school's staff. The song, with video footage, will be launched on the day. A large mural in the amphitheatre at the back of the school was designed by students, staff and local families, marking the 125-year celebrations. I would like to say a big congratulations to the acting principal, Juanita Thomson, and her staff, Sophie Leonard, Olle Cooper, Theresa Anderson-James, Jenny Frost, Dino De Stefani, Karen Rantissi, Ricky Cook, Matthew James, Mark Thomson, Josh Burston, Johann Mortwitzer, Stacey Walder, Cheerie Cross, Lisa Mulheron, Laura Noble, Alwyn Cook and Rani Ferguson as well as the community organisations that have helped make these celebrations a reality. They are: the Cabbage Tree Island community members, the Ballina Cabbage Tree Island Local AECG, Bunjum, Jali land council, Bullinah health service, Solid Mob; and Tweed, Byron and Ballina Community Transport—and many local businesses. Happy birthday, Cabbage Tree Island Public School! The community of Evans Head was the first prawning port in the country. Family names such as Colless, Paddon, Norton, Williamson, Aleckson, Allen, Cribb, Elkerton, Sneesby and Saul are still found among the residents of Evans Head, a testimony to the industry they established. The old fishos who still live in Evans Head, such as Norm Colless and Willis Sneesby, remember the story of Rex Montford, the skipper and owner of Friendship R, which was the first commercial fishing boat to circumnavigate Australia. In 1964, Rex and another fisherman, Ken Messenger, travelled from Evans Head on the epic journey. They faced real and dangerous challenges, including crossing the Great Australian Bight. On the home stretch, Friendship R encountered the wildest seas near Byron Bay. Despite the danger, the crew braved the large waves and ensured they made it on time into Evans Head, where TV cameras waited for them. They had set the world record. Rex died in 2015 at the grand old age of 92, but he's remembered as part of the heritage of Evans Head. WestConnex 12728 10:43 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Tonight work starts at the Pyrmont Bridge Road site for WestConnex stage 3. The project starts tonight but the community consultation processes are next week! What we have is a state government that consults the community after the work starts, and it wonders why there's so much alienation from the state government when it comes to its infrastructure proposals, whether it be WestConnex or the light rail project. What has characterised this is a lack of proper planning, a lack of proper community consultation, and a lack of appropriate outcomes. We know that there have been examples of houses which are seeing their walls cracked, which are seeing damage, but there's no process, as had been called for by the shadow transport minister in New South Wales, Jodi McKay, to ensure that the community can get an independent assessment of whether the damage has been caused by tunnelling activity or not. Surely the state government should put in place a proper process there, just like they should also put in place proper filtering of the stacks for this project. You have the state Liberal government saying there should be filtering on the North Shore in schools, but not saying that for schools in my electorate. These processes need to be looked after in an appropriate way. I call on the New South Wales government to filter the exhaust stacks and to ensure there is a proper process for residents to be able to go to if there is any damage to homes as the result of this infrastructure work. Judo 12728 10:45 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I want to quickly talk about the sport of judo. Judo was invented in 1882 by Jigoro Kano in Japan. It's a modern martial art. It's an Olympic sport and has been for many years, and will soon be a Commonwealth sport for good. I started judo when I was seven at the local Scout hall down the road from where I lived. It really had a big influence on my life. It taught me a lot of things. It taught me about keeping fit; it helped me to be competitive; and it helped me to look after myself. My coach at the time, who was a great woman—she was a fourth dan black belt herself—gave us all a set of rules that my parents hung up behind the toilet door, believe it or not. It was there for many years. One of the first rules was never to lie, even if it means punishment for telling the truth. That was the first rule. It also said to look after your body and treat it well. It spoke about cleanliness before you go onto the mat—washing your feet and so forth—respect for coaches and senseis and people in leadership. One of the other things it said was to always maintain an interest in judo even after you've finished competing. I got my shodan, I represented Queensland at national titles, and I still have a strong interest in it today. I was down at Judo Australia, representing the sports minister at the national titles in my home state. I was at the official opening and watching the competitors there. We've got some great judokas who will represent Australia at the Olympic Games and at the next Commonwealth Games. There are also all the state bodies that do a great job. So I want to say to people: get into judo; get into martial arts. Judo, in particular, offers great self-defence for men, women, boys and girls. The fact that it is an Olympic sport and it teaches you about discipline is really important. In fact I landed my first job when I left school because I'd stuck at judo for 20 years. The guy that employed me said, 'If you can get your black belt, represent Queensland and stick at a sport for 20 years, then that's really important.' So I say to those young people in my electorate that are thinking about a sport, perhaps look up where your local judo club is and get involved in the sport of judo. It is a great sport. For those judokas that are competing, they might like to apply to their federal member for a Local Sporting Champions grant. It's a grant where the federal government can help local athletes with a base grant of about $500 for sportspeople aged between 12 and 18 years if they have competed at a state, national or international championship. They can apply for that grant through their federal member. Invictus Games, Werriwa Electorate: Shepherd Centre 12729 10:48 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I have spoken in this place before about Andrew Wilkinson and his excellent results in the recent Invictus Games. It was a pleasure to catch up with Andrew in my electorate office last month, to see his impressive medal haul and to meet his travelling companion, Able Seaman Miller. Able Seaman Miller is one of 10 Anzac bears given to the athletes to promote some of Australia's World War I heroes with the schoolchildren. Andrew took photos of the bear on the podium and at his events, and he will eventually be given to one of the local schools in my area. Also to welcome Invictus Games participants, Pauline James, State President of the RSL New South Wales Auxiliaries, presented quilts and laundry bags to all Invictus Games athletes. Originally the auxiliary group project asked for 550 Australian-themed laundry bags. They received 1,360. They asked for 25 quilts and received 72. Then they asked for 1,256 yellow poppies. They stopped counting after 8,000. Each participating country was given a quilt, along with Prince Harry and the Duchess of Sussex. This project brought ladies from across Australia together to make these beautiful quilts and laundry bags. Blue Hills Retirement Village in my electorate made 800 of the yellow poppies. The beautiful quilts that are left over from this project for the Invictus Games are going to be used in the RSL Auxiliary's 'thank you for your service' quilts. One of the most special parts of the Invictus Games is how the event has brought Australians together like this. It is incredibly special, and I hope it serves as a reminder to those who serve that Australia is grateful for their service and is always willing to get behind our veterans. Also last month I visited the Shepherd Centre at Casula. The centre runs a community preschool where one-third of the cohort have a hearing loss and the other two-thirds have normal hearing abilities. This enables deaf children to engage in supportive, inclusive early intervention learning environments. The Shepherd Centre is an outstanding model that represents the power of early intervention. It allows deaf children to get the best possible start in their education while navigating the challenges that hearing loss presents. The Shepherd Centre are currently raising funds to enable them to provide further services in Campbelltown, in the member for Macarthur's electorate. This is where the research has told them there is the most need in Western Sydney. Graduates of the early intervention program run by the Shepherd Centre have better than average language outcomes compared to normal hearing children. This program sets them up for better educational outcomes. I look forward to the Shepherd Centre's opening in Campbelltown and I acknowledge the important role the centre plays in my electorate of Werriwa. Endometriosis 12730 10:51 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My home state of South Australia has a proud history of leading the nation with firsts for women. It was the first state to allow women to vote and stand for parliament, in 1894, and it was the home of Australia's first state secondary school for girls, in 1879. Recently I joined South Australian health minister, Stephen Wade, to announce another significant first for education, women and South Australia. We announced that the South Australian Marshall Liberal government and the federal Morrison Liberal government will jointly fund the Pelvic Pain Foundation of Australia to deliver the Periods, Pain and Endometriosis Schools Program, the PPEP-Talk program, to high schools across the state, including in rural and regional South Australia. The students at Mercedes College in my electorate of Boothby were the first to hear this fantastic news, and they have been active in their approach to talking about women's health issues, thanks to the recently graduated year 12 students Holly Cooke and Phoebe Edwards. Holly and Phoebe earlier this year hosted a 'girl talk' presentation to speak with their fellow students about menstrual health issues and to share their own personal experiences. I'm sure everyone in this place will agree that this takes a lot of courage, and I commend Phoebe and Holly and Mercedes College, including the principal, Peter Daw, for leading and supporting these important conversations. I was delighted that Holly and Phoebe were able to join Minister Wade, the Pelvic Pain Foundation's Libby Parker and me to announce the schools education program and remind us just how important and life-changing early diagnosis of medical issues like endometriosis can be. I hope this state-wide education program will prevent another generation of women waiting an average of seven years for a diagnosis and treatment and suffering terribly during that time. We want all young women to know that bad period pain is not normal. If you have bad period pain, you need to see your GP, you need to get help. I'm so proud of everything that we've been able to achieve for women with endometriosis so far. The federal government has launched the first ever National Action Plan for Endometriosis, which will increase educational awareness, improve clinical management and boost research. The national plan is supported by a significant initial funding investment of almost $5 million. We also want employers to know about endometriosis so they can better support the one in 10 Australian women living with the disease. That's why we announced that, as part of the national action plan, Safe Work Australia will develop workplace specific materials to educate employers on the prevalence and impact of endometriosis. I am so proud that we are well and truly ending the silence on endo. We are doing that one student, teacher, nurse, doctor, employer and woman at a time. Hindmarsh Electorate: Stronger Communities Program 12731 10:54 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I rise to talk about some magnificent community groups within my electorate, some fantastic volunteers, that do vital community work, and I was very pleased to support them to gain some grants through the Stronger Communities Program. One of those groups is the Islamic Society of South Australia. I was delighted to support its successful submission, where it received a small amount of money towards the fit-out of its new Al Salam community centre. I'm pleased the member for Boothby, who attended the opening with me, is here. It's a fantastic group that does some great work with the community, aspiring to peace and ensuring there is a connection with the community in the area around them. It's a wonderful group. Another group is the Castellorizian Association of South Australia. It's a great group that has been around since 1927, doing all sorts of things for the Greek community. It was set up by some of the first Greek migrants in South Australia. It's still going strong today. It does lunches for pensioners and has a get-together once a month. I attended its Christmas show on Sunday. I was very pleased that we were able to support its successful submission for $13,000 towards the upgrade of its centre's facilities. The oldest member there was Mrs Finos, a wonderful woman, who's been a member since the thirties—a very, very long time. Her son, Stephen Finos, is the president. It's a great group that has been doing great things for such a long time. The Flinders Park Football Club is another fantastic club that has kids from the age of 10 upwards who participate in Aussie Rules. On training nights it's absolutely packed with mums and dads. It offers a great facility where kids can play sport and participate. I was very pleased that we were able to support its successful submission for $8,000 towards the upgrade of its facilities, namely an electronic scoreboard. It plays some night games and does a whole range of things, and it's wonderful to see the families that are involved in this wonderful club. That's why we were very pleased to support the club. The Girl Guides South Australia is a great group in the Kurralta Park-Plympton area. We are pleased to have supported its submission for $4,000 towards the installation of solar panels, which will bring down its electricity prices. It's a group that has been around for a long, long time. We're all familiar with the Girl Guides and the great work they do for young women and young girls in this nation. One group that I particularly wanted to mention is the Peake Gardens Riverside Tennis Club in Marleston. It has been around for a very long time. I was delighted that we were able to support its submission for $17,000 towards the upgrade of its facilities— (Time expired) Mackellar Electorate: Avalon Beach Surf Lifesaving Club 12732 10:57 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar My electorate of Mackellar is filled with magnificent beaches and some incredible surf lifesaving clubs. For years, proud Northern Beaches residents have claimed that we have some of the best beaches in Australia—well, it's not a claim; it's a fact—if not the world. That too is a fact. Yes, it's a huge claim; however, if you've visited one of the many beaches along our peninsular, you may even agree. Our beaches would not be the same without our heroes in yellow and red. They add safety, fun and soul to our beaches. So it came as no surprise to me to hear that the Avalon surf lifesaving club was named the best surf club in Australia for 2017-18. Not only is it visually a work of art; Avalon surf lifesaving club boasts the highest number of patrolling members, with over 313 people, as well as the highest number of collective patrol hours—a staggering 8,787 hours. The club would not be the same without former president and current vice-president, Richard Cole. Richard and fellow club member Robert Hopton were integral in the conception, generation, design and funding of the new Avalon surf lifesaving club. Richard is a highly acclaimed architect and was at the helm of the club's restoration. The design has the history and location of the club in mind. The shape of the roof reflects the abstract form of the sand dunes, and the plane of the ceiling and eaves echoes the plane of the ocean and broad horizontal of the horizon. The building is naturally ventilated and highly insulated. It uses minimal energy and collects its own rainwater and solar power. This award-winning surf lifesaving club is an asset to the community of Mackellar, and I commend Richard and Robert on all their hard work in seeing this project come to fruition. When accepting the highly coveted award of Club of the Year, Richard said: We're doing incredible things as lifesavers and we really can be the heart and soul of our community. I could not agree more. Richard and all of the team at Avalon Beach Surf Life Saving Club are the heart and soul of our community, as are all lifesavers across Australia. I'm honoured to have people so committed to our community in Mackellar. Richard, I commend you on all your hard work at the club. I look forward to seeing what stunning architectural projects you get up to next. In the 20 seconds I have left, I would like to wish this House, all my colleagues here, my community, my family and, in particular, my staff, who do such a good job of making me look good, a merry Christmas and a happy new year. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 I thank the member. Making you look good is a very tough job! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 12732 CONDOLENCES Mabo, Dr Bonita, AO 12732 11:01 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I rise to firstly acknowledge traditional country—the Ngambri and Ngunawal people of this part of Australia. I rise to acknowledge today, as many other people have done, including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, the passing of Dr Mabo. Dr Mabo was an activist for social justice, for human rights and for her people. She was an educator. She was one of 10 children and a mother of 10 herself. I knew her and her family. She was a daughter of the South Sea Islands and a mother who raised Torres Strait Islander children, and that combination, of course, is something that we see very much in northern Australia. Dr Mabo's story is the story of First Nations women in this country. Her history is the history of First Nations women. She was married to one of the most famous Torres Strait Islanders we have seen in our nation's story, and of course that was Eddie Koiki Mabo. Bonita herself was a descendant of Ni-Vanuatuans, and that shameful story of blackbirding in our country, part of the Australian truth-telling, is something that is not well known. She described the first time that she met Eddie as love at first sight, and I've heard Eddie's voice on the radio saying the same thing. They married at Ingham in 1959. Between them, they had seven children of their own and adopted three into their family, such is the way of First Nations people. The Mabo name is, as I said, synonymous with a component of reconciliation—truth-telling, the great truth of this nation, one that our maps and, up until recently, our public discourse has denied. As we travel across our continent, we travel through hundreds of individual sovereign nation states, each with their own laws, customs and histories that were never lost or forgotten by our people. It was in 1972 that Eddie began the battle, with the support of Bonita, his family and his community, for justice and land rights, when he, Bonita and their family were refused permission by the Queensland government to return to Murray Island, where Eddie's father was dying. It was a seminal moment and a part of that terrible, terrible injustice that many people have faced in this country. The 1992 High Court decision 20 years later and the subsequent passage of the 1993 Native Title Act in this place marked a fundamental shift in the place of First Nations people in this country. Dr Mabo said at the time: I was his wife, but that's as far as it went. I've got nothing to do with the land, that was his fight. He had to fight for his land. It was hard at times. When things were a bit tough on him, I had to wear it. But other than that I knew it was hard for him, and I couldn't do anything to help. We just hung in there. Of course, Eddie never lived to see that famous decision, that wonderful decision in 1992, and he certainly didn't see the passage of the Native Title Act in 1993. But, whilst he didn't see it himself, his family did; his community did. And that is what is important. Bonita Mabo put her family first, and we can see that in her actions. We also know that, for many tens of thousands of years, First Nations women have been responsible for carrying our dreaming stories, songlines, languages and knowledge on raising children that have kept our culture strong and enriched us as the oldest continuing culture on the planet. And Dr Mabo embraced this. She exemplified it. In 1973, she co-founded and operated, with her husband, the Townsville Black Community School. It was revolutionary at the time, and I actually have memories of that revolution. Disenchanted with the Queensland curriculum's approach to Indigenous education, Eddie and two other teachers worked for half-pay to help establish the school, and Bonita worked as an organiser and teacher's assistant. The school and the concept of the school were received with hostility in the political environment of the era, from politicians to the media to the local community. It is difficult to envisage undertaking such an innovative and groundbreaking initiative at the height of the Bjelke-Petersen era, knowing full well that they would be met with such misplaced rage and misunderstanding. Such is the mark of the woman. The then state minister for education denounced the motives of the students' parents, declaring their attitudes as 'racist' and the school as 'apartheid in reverse'—so ironic in the Bjelke-Petersen era! The school, which, at its peak, had 45 students enrolled in the late seventies, reshaped our attitudes towards the importance of Indigenous education and the significance of Indigenous culture and history—not just for First Nations children but for all Australian children. Eddie died some six months before the handing down of the High Court decision, as I said, and Bonita supported Eddie throughout this time, whilst raising her family and dealing with the many things that she had to deal with. And of course Bonita was a quiet, solid person, and she quietly went about her business. There is a saying that still waters run deep. She was stoic, determined, and quietly impatient. So it is that Bonita's story and the story of First Nations women—these strong First Nations women—you will seldom see on television. But I tell you: she was a hero for so many. She helped so many. And she meant an enormous amount to every single Australian. It was just last year of course—the 25th anniversary of the Mabo decision. I remember Bonita coming to this place with her daughter Gail, who I know very well, and, of course, Jenny Macklin, who had been a great friend to Bonita for so long, and that was a celebration. Bonita, in her wheelchair, with Gail came onto the floor of the parliament, and everyone celebrated her being there and celebrated why she was there. What was so touching was: just four days before Dr Mabo's death, she was awarded an honorary doctorate of letters by James Cook University—such a fitting thing to happen. Of course, her husband, Eddie, had worked there, as a groundsman, many years before. It would have been difficult to envisage, back in '73, 45 years ago this year, in the early days of the Townsville Black Community School, with what the press were saying at the time, and with what our political leaders were saying at the time, the unanimous praise in our parliament from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I was so pleased when both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition marked the passing of Bonita Mabo. Her deeds, her example and her story show us that what may seem scary and fearful, uncharted or unprecedented today, can be our history, our legacy, tomorrow. Of course there is a great desire in this nation now for the need for truth-telling, and, really, I will never forget the role that Bonita and her family and her late husband played, in terms of telling the truth in this country. That High Court decision was remarkable. It, for all of us, as Australians, threw out the legal doctrine of terra nullius and, for the first time, in 1992, recognised Aboriginal peoples' connection to country. I know that the member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin, was a very close friend to Bonita, and I particularly wanted to mention Jenny and that relationship today. I say to Gail and her family: we won't be able to be there tomorrow in Townsville for the state funeral—and I'm very pleased that the Palaszczuk government has determined that it should be a state funeral; it's absolutely, absolutely, fitting—but every single member of this parliament, on both sides of parliament, will, I am sure, take a moment to reflect on the Bonita Mabo story, of the story of her family, and the incredible role that her family has played in shaping this story of this nation. It is a role that all of us are recipients of, and a role that has made Australia a very much better place. Finally, I say once again to Gail and her family: we can't be there tomorrow—there will be representatives, I am sure—but our thoughts are with you for your mum's next journey in life. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 I thank the member for Barton for her heartfelt words. 11:11 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins In decades past, Australia has been lifted by many great Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, and I feel very privileged to be following on from the member for Barton, who, of course, is the first Aboriginal woman who has been elected to the House of Representatives and certainly fits in that pantheon. Pearl Gibbs, Dr Evelyn Scott and Mum Shirl are just some of the names of women who fought courageously for their people and against prejudice and the injustices of their times; women who made Australia a better country. Last week another incredible woman passed—Bonita Mabo. Dr Mabo campaigned alongside her late husband, Eddie Mabo, in pursuit of land rights for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In the famous Mabo v Queensland court case, Eddie Mabo successfully challenged the notion of terra nullius—that Australia was a 'land belonging to no-one'—in the High Court of Australia. Their fight lasted more than a decade. Sadly, Eddie Mabo did not live to see that landmark decision which paved the way for the Native Title Act 1993. In 2017, Bonita recalled the moment she heard about the High Court decision. We were just outside of Sydney and we stopped and pulled up on the side of the road and Malita rang us and said 'dad won the decision, won the case', she said. And we just jumped out and we just hugged each other. And we were as proud as punch. Following her husband's death in 1992, Dr Mabo continued her activism for a new cause—the rights of Australian South Sea Islander people. During an award ceremony for an honorary doctorate from James Cook University just a week before she died, her 45 years of campaigning for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and Australian South Sea Islanders was recognised. She has been described by her people as 'one of the greatest matriarchs of all time'. Bonita was born in Ingham, Queensland, one of 10 children. Eddie and Bonita also had 10 children. She was an Australian South Sea Islander of Ni-Vanuatu descent whose ancestors were indentured and sent to Australia to work in the sugarcane industry in the 19th century—known as blackbirding. In 1973 Eddie and Bonita established the Black Community School in Townsville, where children could learn about their own culture. In later years she fought for South Sea Islanders to be recognised in Australia as their own distinct ethnic group. She was recognised in the Order of Australia in 2013 for 'distinguished service to the Indigenous community and to human rights'. Tomorrow we say our final farewell to Dr Mabo AO. We think of her family, we think of her friends and we think of all of the lives that she has touched. I would like to thank her for her tireless work to make Australia a better country. On behalf of our nation, we are very grateful. COMMITTEES 12736 COMMITTEES Constitutional Recognition Relating to ATSIP 12736 Report 12736 11:17 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi I'm really proud to support this report, and I want to take the opportunity today to acknowledge, honour and thank everybody involved. I want to refer to some of the key findings in the report, and I want to finish by referring specifically to my electorate of Indi. To the committee and to the wonderful people who were involved in doing this report, I extend my thanks not only for your excellent company but for the leadership and the very high level of skill you brought to this task. To the co-chairs, Patrick Dodson and Julian Leeser: I have learned so much from the way you have worked together. To the committee members, the Hon. Linda Burney, Sussan Ley, John McVeigh, Llew O'Brien, Warren Snowdon, Jonathon Duniam, Malarndirri McCarthy, Rachel Siewert and Amanda Stoker: it's been an absolute pleasure to work with you, and I thank you. Thank you to the secretariat for the work that they did. It was such a difficult task to not only herd the cats that were the committee and our very complicated lives but also follow up with the submissions, organise the public hearings and produce such a good report at the end. Thank you to all the people who made submissions and the people who appeared before the committee to share their wisdom, their courage, their leadership and, most importantly for me, their goodwill. It has been an absolutely amazing committee for me to be on. It's the first time I've experienced bipartisan co-chairs working together and it's the first time I've been on a parliamentary committee where the numbers worked out. There were equal numbers of House of Reps members and senators and equal numbers of government and opposition, and two Independents to manage it all. The committee worked so well. The debate was fierce, the content was excellent and the people were professional. I was definitely inspired by the role of committees in this parliament. I'm really pleased with the final report. It's a very elegant report. It's simple and clear in its recommendations. I'm going to speak particularly to one of the recommendations, around truth-telling, but before I get there I want to bring into parliament and my words today how important this process has been, taking the work of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for so many years, through the Uluru Statement from the Heart, to this report. I want to grace my words today with these words from the Statement from Heart: 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. I take those words with such optimism. We've got 60,000 years of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history, and, projecting it into the future, we might have another 60,000 years of this nation working together. This moment in time is where the past actually comes to its place and we can design our future, giving full recognition to the tradition and the cultures of the first people of this country. I'm very keen to be part of that. I will move to one of the recommendations in the report, about truth-telling. The foreword to the report says: We believe there is a strong desire among all Australians to know more about the history, traditions and culture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 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 have made some recommendations about how this might be achieved. Today I want to talk a little bit about how I will take this report and work within my electorate to bring that recommendation to its next stage. In doing so, I want to read into the parliamentary Hansard the names of the people in my electorate who made submissions to the inquiry and say thank you to them. I think in these committees we often ignore or take for granted the enormous amount of time that people put into making submissions, the thought they give to it and the expertise they bring to it. To John van Riet, Marie Sellstrom, Pam Griffin, Chris Norman, Warren Gould, Rhonda Diffey, Val Gleeson, Elizabeth Quinn, Judith Ahmat, Violet Town & District Reconciliation Group, Shepparton Region Reconciliation Group, Dr Jacqueline Durrant, Doug Westland, Rebecca Crawley, Pat Larkin, Cath Marriott, Kate Auty and Charlie Brydon, Albury-Wodonga Health, Liz Heta, Tony Lane and Uncle Freddie, I've read every single one of your submissions, I've heard what you've had to say and I commit to continue to work to deliver on the requests that you make. In acknowledging the people who made submissions, I also want to share with the House some follow-up work I've done since the public hearings finished. In my electorate, gathering around Albury is a group called Wodonga First Nations Senior Consultative Group. I met them two weeks ago to talk to them about aspects of truth-telling in North-East Victoria. I want to acknowledge Alan Steward, Kevin and Lyn Bell, Rachael Bogie, Steven Pickering, Jenny Murray, Liz Heta, Pam Griffin, Walter Melrose, Sonnie Morgan, Tony and Julie, and Nancee Butler and say thank you for inviting me into your circle. I look forward to meeting you late in January and continuing our discussion of some of the history of this land that I call home. I want to finish with a bit about why all this is so relevant and so close to my heart. When the initial apology was made in parliament, the member for Indi at that time was not present. It caused enormous suffering in my community that the member chose not to be there. When I got elected, it was one of those things that I said I would put first and foremost—to make sure that I represent my Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, and I will do that; I will give voice to their issues. One of the particular areas to give a voice to is the Closing the gap report and that process. I've been working with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to talk about how the data for Closing the Gap is actually collected at a local level, how the institutions in my electorate can work together to set our own targets and how we as a community can take responsibility for our own targets. To do that, one of the things we need to do is look at our history, to look at white settlement and the conflict that happened there. There are very few traditional owners still living in north-east Victoria because of the impact of white settlement. There's very little data collected in my electorate around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their issues—there is some—and there's an enormous amount of work that needs to be done in the justice, health and education areas. But, to do that, non-Indigenous and Indigenous people need to work together. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:26 to 11:42 Ms McGOWAN 123674 In conclusion, I really want to support recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government support the process of truth-telling. This could include the involvement of local organisations and communities, libraries, historical societies and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander associations. Some national coordination may be required, not to determine outcomes but to provide incentive and vision. These projects should include both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and descendants of local settlers. This could be done either prior to or after the establishment of the local voice bodies. So, in bringing my comments to a close, I would like to offer north-east Victoria as a place where we could begin the process of truth-telling and work with local settlers, such as my family, who have been in the community of north-east Victoria since the gold rush days, and my extended family and my community, and work with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional owners and people who have come to the area more recently—beginning the process of telling our truth and understanding our history—and together, with a much better process, we can move forward for the next 60,000 years of Australia's history. 11:43 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler It is appropriate that I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which this parliament meets and pay my respect to elders past and present. I am very pleased to take the opportunity to speak to this report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I believe that our Constitution is inadequate while ever the First Australians are not recognised in it. We recognised the rights of Indigenous Australians to be citizens in the famous referendum in 1967, but we need to take the next step—it's absolutely critical. Last May, 250 First Nations leaders met at Uluru. They delivered a historic document, the Statement from the Heart. It is a powerful document, and it included the following powerful passage: 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. Indeed, those of us who are the descendants of migrants, which is all of us except First Nations people, benefit enormously from the fact that we have, in our midst, the oldest continuous civilisation on the planet. It is something that we should cherish. It is something we should recognise. Something that we should acknowledge is that the arrival of Europeans in 1788 brought violence, disease and hardship on those people who had been here for 60,000 years previously. We should also acknowledge how we're enriched by that culture. The connection that First Nations people have with the land and with water is something that we can learn a great deal from, so Labor very much accepts the Statement from the Heart. We support a voice to parliament and we support constitutional change. When the 250 First Nations leaders delivered the Statement from the Heart, the then Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, simply dismissed the call for a constitutional voice. He told the ABC: I don't believe that would be able to be passed at a referendum and it's not a policy that I would support. Instead of committing himself to listening to First Nations people, to showing leadership for our nation, his government mounted a scare campaign about so-called third chambers of parliament and rejected the proposal out of hand. That was tragic. It followed, and was reminiscent of, the Howard government's failed recognition of an apology to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—an apology that was famously delivered by Kevin Rudd at the first opportunity after the election of a Labor government. As the Leader of the House of Representatives in that government, that was my proudest moment—my proudest moment, bar none. Around the country, far from it being a time of division, it was a unifying moment in our nation's history. People, whether they were members of the stolen generation or young kids in every school around the country, stopped to watch that apology. They were inspired by that moment. That was important, but it was, as then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said at the time, just a first step. He said that we needed to commit to practical reconciliation, closing the gaps—in some cases extremely large gaps—between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their fellow Australians that still exist in education, health and other outcomes. The voice to parliament could also be a unifying moment. It's not a third chamber; it plays no role in the legislative process in terms of making law. It is simply what the title implies: a voice whereby First Nations people would be consulted on legislation that affects them. It would provide a structure for that consultation and input. It wouldn't determine what way any one of the 150 members of the House of Representatives or 76 senators would vote on legislation, but it would allow for appropriate democratic input. That is why it is critical. That is why we have committed to consulting with First Nations people to design the voice to parliament. That is why Labor's response has been worked up with the input particularly of Senator Patrick Dodson, widely regarded as the father of reconciliation in this country; Linda Burney, my long-time colleague and friend; Senator Malarndirri McCarthy; Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari; and Luke Gosling, who's here in the chamber, the member for Solomon. They have all worked very hard to consult and to establish a process moving forward. This report is part of that process. It is keeping the fight for constitutional recognition alive in this parliament, despite the inaction of the government. But there is much more to do. That's why we're committed to additional reforms proposed by the Statement from the Heart—in particular the makarrata commission for agreement making and truth-telling. That's why we remain committed to closing the gap. I said in this place on the 10th anniversary of the apology: Of course, the apology was not the end of the story; it was just the beginning … it was just a step on the road to reconciliation. I believed that then and I believe that today. The national apology was a step on this road, closing the gap means more steps on this road, and constitutional recognition is a vital step in us truly coming together as a nation. On this side of the house, Labor is committed to continuing on this journey. I know that across the parliament there are many people of goodwill who are also committed to this journey. I believe we need to advance it because it's in the interests not just of First Nations peoples but of each and every Australian and those generations to come. 11:53 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners and thank them for their strong and continuing stewardship. I'm pleased to speak on the tabling of this report from the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. I'd first like to acknowledge the great work of the co-chairs of that committee, Senator Patrick Dodson and the member for Berowra. Through the stewardship of these good men, this report has found common ground across the members of the committee, providing for the first time the possibility of a path forward for our parliament and for our nation. The committee traversed the country, holding 27 hearings in communities from the remote town of Fitzroy Crossing through to bustling Sydney and everywhere in between. They have listened to First Nations people. This report recommends that, following a process of co-design with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the Australian government consider, in a deliberate and timely manner, legislative, executive and constitutional options to establish the voice. The call for a First Nations Voice in the Australian Constitution was borne out of the First Nations National Constitutional Convention, held over four days in May 2017. At that convention, delegates met to discuss and find agreement on an approach to constitutional reform to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The resulting Uluru Statement from the Heart had two broad reform objectives: the establishment of a First Nations voice and a makarrata commission. I'll come to the makarrata commission concept in a minute, but first I want to talk about the First Nations voice. Although the first word spoken on earth was an Aboriginal word, it has been 10 years since the issue of constitutional recognition of First Nations people was raised loudly and consistently in the public domain. Obviously, it's not a new idea to include our First Australians in the Constitution; it was discussed even before the Constitution kicked off in January 1901. And it's hardly revolutionary that Aboriginal people should have a say in the decisions that affect them on their land. It has taken far too long to get to this point of consensus about how we might move forward. Along the way we've seen scaremongering that a voice would become a third chamber of parliament. That is total nonsense, and I do call out the former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull for that craven framing of that call for a First Nations voice. A voice will actually be a mechanism for First Nations people to have a greater say in the policy issues that impact on their lives. It will not be a chamber of this parliament. There are many complex issues that affect First Australians, and we should be working with them to find solutions. I'm very pleased that the committee report has produced clear, bipartisan recommendations on a way to achieve a design for the voice and a recommendation that the Australian government consider in a deliberate and timely manner the way to enshrine the voice into law, the law of this land. Labor made it clear that, if elected, a Shorten Labor government will establish a voice for First Nations people and will seek the support of all Australians for that voice to then be enshrined in the Constitution. It will be Labor's first priority for constitutional change. It's about time our birth certificate included the original Australians. Labor is committed to providing a genuine process of government and First Nations people working together to achieve meaningful change. I mentioned earlier that one of the reform objectives from the Uluru Statement from the Heart was to seek a makarrata commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history. The word 'makarrata' is from the language of the Yolngu people in Arnhem Land. It conveys a concept of two parties coming together after a struggle and negotiating to heal the divisions of the past. It is about acknowledging that something has been done wrong and seeking to make things right. What a wonderful concept. The committee acknowledges that the word 'makarrata' means different things to different people. The Referendum Council says that 'makarrata' is another word for treaty or agreement-making; however, the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council calls it both truth-telling and agreement-making. The committee report acknowledges that there is no single defined and agreed way forward on the proposal for a makarrata commission. The committee did come to consensus on truth-telling, saying in their report: Truth-telling is crucial to the ongoing process of healing and reconciliation in Australia. The committee has recommended that the government support the process of truth-telling. It suggests that the process could include the involvement of local organisations, local communities, libraries, historical societies and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander associations. The committee acknowledged that there is a desire amongst Australians for a fuller understanding of our history, including the history, traditions and culture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and contact between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and settler communities. Such a process will help us all to belong here even more. As a teacher and a writer, I'm particularly pleased that the committee has come to this recommendation to record our history. That history is so important. It is important to preserve the history and culture of our First Nations people so future generations can benefit from the knowledge of that history and culture. It is also important to record historic events and the impacts of colonisation on our communities. It is urgent that this be undertaken soon. History can be lost if we don't record it, and as older generations fall away. Some of that history, some of our history, will be uncomfortable for us to acknowledge. For example, some of the events raised with the committee include massacres, dispossession, stolen wages, and many, many uncomfortable truths. It might be true to say that the statues of some white settlers stand on bricks that are held together with mortar containing the bones of First Nations people. That can be uncomfortable, but it does not mean that it was not a truth. These events are not events that we like to think about as our history. They weren't in the history books I was taught from when I was at primary school. And, if we think about them at all, we distance our own personal history, often, from these events. In some ways, that is not an untruth. We obviously were not around when these events occurred in many parts of Australia—not all parts of Australia but most parts of Australia. But failing to recognise these events in our history is not truthful. Ignoring the damage being visited on the First Nations people of today because of that settlement would require a deliberate blindness. And that is not something this nation needs. We are seeking a new vision—a clearer vision. Australia should never ever be a nation built on lies. We have unfinished business, and we must set that right. Truth-telling must include acknowledging the atrocities of the past, however uncomfortable that might be. We must seek collective penance, in a way, for our collective guilt, for the dispossession of First Nations people in so many parts of Australia. I applaud the committee for the work that they have done in producing this report. I applaud them for focusing on the common ground amongst the broad views held by members of the committee. I applaud them for persevering and achieving agreement on recommendations that will take this nation forward. It is a long road ahead, but I take comfort that we have come some way already from the Barunga Statement presented to Prime Minister Hawke in 1988, to the High Court's Mabo decision in 1992—and I note, in passing, that it is Dr Bonita Mabo's funeral today up in Townsville—to the incredible, the magnificent, Redfern speech by Prime Minister Paul Keating in 1992, which should be compulsory reading for every Australian, as far as I am concerned. It was the first time an Australian political leader publicly admitted the impact of white settlement on Indigenous Australians, and then, in February 2008, on my first day at work in this building, the apology to Australia's Indigenous people delivered by Prime Minister Rudd—still my best day in this building—and then the Uluru Statement from the Heart and this report from the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. But we are nowhere near done. This is the beginning, and I look forward to the process from these recommendations beginning to bring us closer to healing and reconciliation, and a true, true sense of belonging. I look forward to the whole parliament working together to achieve constitutional recognition of the First Nations people and to a process of truth-telling being implemented as soon as possible. The opposition leader, in his address to the anniversary breakfast for the national apology to the stolen generations this year, when talking about 'bipartisanship', said that it is a meaningless word if it is an excuse to do nothing. Bipartisanship can never be an alibi for inaction. We've made it clear we'll work with this government, but we will not wait for them. Enshrining the voice is Labor's first priority for constitutional change. Let's get this done. 12:03 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon It's with great pleasure that I speak to the constitutional recognition report. As a member of Labor's First Nations caucus committee, I have been privileged to work through it and to attend some of the very important hearings, including the one at Barunga that many of the speakers before me have referred to. I congratulate both of the co-chairs of this report. It was a great privilege to be at Barunga, in particular with the opposition leader Bill Shorten and the land councils. In particular, I want to point out the speech that Senator Patrick Dodson gave at that event. It was truly a remarkable speech. You got some sense of the passion from the audience, their complexities of making this pathway through these important issues for our nation. The co-chair Julian Leeser, the member for Berowra, is to be congratulated. We're going to need the current government into the future, whatever future that may be. I was very pleased to read that, in his speech, he paid tribute to Senator Dodson. I also think that it's worth quoting that speech. Because he had his son in the gallery for the first time, the member for Berowra said that: I hope that, when he looks back on whatever his father achieves in this place, he will be proud of the efforts his dad made towards constitutional recognition of and reconciliation with our First Nations peoples. This remains one of Australia's great national goals. In a very genuine and sincere way, I want to share the member for Berowra's hopes for the future in a bipartisan way, because it is important. No one party can do this together. Leadership is required, and I think leadership is being shown with this report. It maps out a path, including co-design, that is going to be essential for us to arrive at a place where the government is working through a process, through the co-design, led by the First Nations peoples of our country. Of course, the voice that quite unexpectedly came out of the First Nations leaders' meeting at Uluru a couple of years ago is now our challenge—to work together as a parliament and for this and future federal governments to work through a process of legislating once that co-design has been done. We want to have a process continue, now that this report is done, that is free from any scaremongering of the past. Let's leave that well behind us. The member for Moreton referred to the scaremongering around a third chamber. It was blatantly untrue and being used purely for scaremongering. For those who might seek to derail this important project for our country: yes, the temptation will continue to be there for you to derail it. But I would simply say, in a spirit of bipartisanship for what is good for our country, that we cannot afford those straw man arguments and those negative campaigns of the past to derail this, because it is too important for our country. This report is part of a process that is continuing. There is more work to be done. I think we all recognise that these important issues of constitutional entrenchment and a referendum will require real leadership—leadership such as that shown by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd with the apology. That leadership needs to continue into the future so that First Nations people have a voice and there is an acknowledgement of truth. The Statement from the Heart that the First Nations leaders at Uluru came up with threw a big challenge our way, and I think this report is an important step towards us rising to that challenge. Hopefully, the spirit of partnership can continue so that there is some truth-telling, which I think is really important because, on a fundamental level, our nation needs to continue to build the ethical infrastructure of our nation by coming to the truth. There may be some who will say that Australia can't handle the truth, but I think that is very wrong. I think our country is up for that two-way learning. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:11 to 12:30 Mr GOSLING 245392 When the First Nations leaders met at Uluru, they called for a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament. That's what we, the current opposition, support. I want to again acknowledge the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. I had the great honour of going to Barunga for the hearing that was held there, which involved the land councils, many members of the First Nations communities from the Northern Territory, Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten, and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Michael Gunner. It was a privilege to be there. As I mentioned earlier, it was a privilege to hear Senator Dodson speak in that environment and also to have the member for Berowra, the co-chair of this committee, there to witness that and, with the other members of that committee, to hear the testimony, to answer questions, to listen. It was a great privilege, and I look forward to working with the First Nations caucus committee as part of the Labor team, and also working in any way possible with those opposite to make sure that we keep this very important set of challenges or opportunities for our country heading in the right direction. We don't want to see any more scaremongering about a third chamber, as I have mentioned earlier. It's unfortunate that that has been part of our history, whether it be about the apology or whether it be scaremongering about the third chamber. I think we can all look past that now and really look forward to this as an opportunity to heal our nation and tell the truth about our history, because we will all be so much richer for it. It's very important. I am given confidence by the member for Berowra and his approach to this important issue. Debate adjourned. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 12744 Report 12744 12:33 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I welcome the report into the government's management of the PFAS contamination in and around Defence bases. This inquiry was incredibly important for me, not only as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, who conducted the inquiry, but also as the federal member for Paterson and a member of our community, someone who was born and grew up in our area and who knows so many of the people who have been impacted. A special message for those people: thank you so much for your help in formulating the recommendations of this inquiry. My electorate includes Williamtown, where PFAS has been contaminating the land since the 1970s. It's been found in soil, in groundwater, in seafood, in cattle, in cows' milk, in backyards, in chickens and their eggs, in homegrown vegetables and fruit, and in the blood of people who have been exposed to it over many, many years while living in a property they have invested everything in. Williamtown is also the home of the only red zone across all of the PFAS contaminated sites. Since the chemical was discovered, my constituents have literally been to hell and back. Fishers were forced to stop fishing. Banks stopped lending. Valuers wouldn't even set foot on contaminated land. Property values plummeted. People have been worried sick. They feel stuck. They feel frightened. They feel abandoned by their federal government. All the signs on Cabbage Tree Road attest to that. Over the past three years, heartbreaking stories have emerged from my community about the real-life impact of this chemical, stories like that of Sam and Jamie Kelly. When their little boy, William, was born, he was found to have significant levels of PFAS in his tiny baby body as a result of living in the contaminated red zone, although he hadn't really lived there for very long, and his parents had done everything that they could possibly do to ensure that he had no exposure pathways whatsoever. It forced the young family to go to the doctor. When they went to the doctor, the doctor said, 'If it was my child, I wouldn't take him home there.' So they made an incredibly difficult decision. After building their 'forever home' as a young couple, to raise their baby boy in, they put their home on the market and rented somewhere else while they continued to pay off their mortgage. But no-one was interested in buying their property. It took a long time, it took a cash sale and it made a big financial impact on their lives. They have received nothing. The Kellys have suffered severe financial loss and heartache during this process. They are not the only ones. They are just one, very heartbreaking example. This report is intended to provide clarity and direction to the federal government about the effects of PFAS and how to best manage it. Labor pushed for this inquiry. I'm pleased to say that I personally pushed tirelessly to see that this inquiry came to pass. We understood how necessary it was and we pleaded with the then Turnbull government to establish it. This report outlines nine recommendations, including the appointment of a national coordinator-general to coordinate a national response to contamination; measures to improve participation in voluntary blood testing for residents living near or on contaminated land; and the big question of compensation. The first thing I want to emphasise about this report is that the government must act. They must act urgently and formally to announce what they are going to do in response. We desperately need an official response so members of my community can begin to move forward. The Liberal government have failed every community contaminated by PFAS. In the absence of their own policy, they adopted the PFAS policy Labor took to the 2016 election and butchered it. Communication between government departments and affected residents has been dismal. There is a complete lack of regard for people who have lost the value of everything they've worked their entire lives for. Since the announcement of PFAS in Williamtown, just three years ago, it has been the responsibility of seven different government ministers—seven! Talk about buck-passing. Countless community meetings have been held in Williamtown, but most of them, especially recently, have been held during parliamentary sitting weeks, conveniently preventing me and the responsible ministers from attending. On Monday of this week, a community meeting was held in Williamtown by the Department of Health. I was made aware of this information session by community members. My constituents phoned me and said, 'Hey, Meryl, have you heard about this meeting that the Department of Health are holding?' 'No,' I said. Then I saw an ad in the paper for it, in the classified section, right next to a fridge for sale. Thanks very much for that, Department of Health! That is not how you conduct meaningful consultation in communities. An elected representative should be able to be there. There was no email. There was no letter. There was no other notification of this meeting. That has been what has happened every time with this government. Understandably I was concerned that, as the local federal member, I was not informed that this information session was on or given appropriate information to pass on to my constituents. As parliament was sitting, a member of my staff attended. Like so many of the residents who also attended, she told me the meeting was practically useless or, to quote from the Newcastle Herald story today, 'I would have been better off at home talking to my dog'. Today I've written to the Minister for Health to seek an explanation about this community meeting. Why wasn't I, as the federal representative for the area, informed, and why wasn't reasonable notice given to the community? As the local member for this area, I have continuously advocated for the people of Williamtown. I stood with them on my first day in parliament. In fact, it's one of the reasons that I even wanted to come to this place. When I made my first speech in the House, I said: This issue is fresh and real in my mind and my heart. We have made mistakes with tobacco, asbestos and coal dust in the past. We sat idly by thinking everything would be okay. We cannot afford to do that with PFAS. I made that speech in October 2016. We stand here now in December 2018, and very little has happened. But I stand with my community and I intend to continue to fight for them. We need real leadership on this, not some lame excuse. I wrote to and invited the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, to come to my electorate to understand the issue. Once you sit down with the people of my community, you'll have a sense of what they've been through. And can I just say: this has happened to them. They didn't do anything wrong. They didn't choose to do something that might put them in jeopardy. This has happened through no fault of their own. A government department has done this to them, and what are we going to do to right it? I have put blood, sweat and many tears—especially recently—into this. Labor is currently working on our approach to PFAS contamination, especially in Williamtown. There is no doubt the committee's report is comprehensive. It makes a number of recommendations, each one incredibly important. As this report has been tabled only this week, I'm going to continue to work with my Labor colleagues to consider all of the recommendations outlined, including recommendation 5. Labor will review the recommendations and consider them further after a briefing from the Assistant Minister for Defence. I welcome that briefing, and I again plead with the defence minister and those responsible to do something. There is no doubt that my focus is on my community, and I want to say thank you to the people who attended the hearings: Janice and Terry Robinson, Sue Walker, John Donahoo, Justin Hamilton, Rhianna and Cain Gorfine, who worked so hard, all of the members of the Coalition Against PFAS, especially the president, Lindsay Clout, all of the members of the Williamtown and Surrounds Residents Action Group, the general manager of Port Stephens Council, Wayne Wallis, Brian Byers, Linden Drysdale, David Gaddes, Neville Jelfs, Samantha Kelly, Stephen Kuehn, Des Maslen, Britt Osborne, Susan Peak, Wayne Sampson, Kim Smith, David Vial—and my very good friend and effective state member, Kate Washington, who has stood shoulder-to-shoulder with me to take up this fight every day. And Kate and I aren't giving up. I am advocating for the people of my community. I'm sorry if I left someone off that list. You have all worked tirelessly. I thank you. Do not give up hope. The fight is still on for you. 12:43 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom I also rise to contribute to the debate on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report on the inquiry into the management of PFAS contaminations in and around Defence bases across the country, which was released, as we know, on 3 December, a few days ago. First of all, I acknowledge the comments of the former speaker, who is dealing with PFAS contamination in her electorate, as am I in the electorate of Groom, around the Oakey Army Aviation Centre, and other colleagues are elsewhere across the country. It's a very challenging and complex problem that affects Defence bases, which was the focus of this report, but also, as we know, other installations across the broader community where these PFAS contaminants have been used, particularly in firefighting foams at Defence and non-Defence airports and similar facilities. First and foremost, the primary concern for me—and, I have no doubt, for all members of the House—is the health impacts on residents, constituents, in our various electorates. I focus upon the fact, because it's my primary concern, that the advice from relevant authorities, the advice referred to in this report, is that there continues to be, at this stage, no consistent evidence that PFAS chemicals are harmful to human health. But the report, along with other recommendations in previous inquiry reports, reminds us that there are recommendations that that advice continue to be monitored. Beyond that, there is certainly the impact on the livelihoods of people affected and on property values, as we've heard. It extends through to mental health challenges—stress, if you like; pressures for people who are simply concerned about their properties and the property value. For some that is a property that they may have purchased prior to knowing of this PFAS contamination, and they are now unable to continue with the building of a house or other facilities because the banks are unable or unwilling to provide them with finance. At the other end of the spectrum are those who are simply wanting to move on with their lives—perhaps, as is the case with a number of constituents in Oakey, moving into an aged-care facility. They want to sell their home and use that value to fund their way into an aged-care facility but are equally stuck, for want of a better term, waiting for an outcome before they can move on with their lives. This is a tremendously challenging issue right across the country. I want to talk briefly about the background of government action to date and then specifically come back to the recommendations in this report. I'm hoping the report will prompt quicker action than we have seen—particularly in the compensation discussion, which may or may not involve, for example, land buybacks or other forms of compensation—and also address some of the other recommendations. I want to acknowledge that the government previously established the PFAS Taskforce. That is nowadays located within the Department of the Environment and Energy. Previously it was in the Prime Minister's office. There's been the investment of $55.2 million for a drinking-water program. That has certainly provided support in the town in my electorate that's affected, Oakey, which a beautiful town that was the centre of my life in my younger years, given I was raised on a farm at Jondaryan, not far from Oakey. There's $17.9 million from the Department of the Environment and Energy to continue the commitment to respond to contamination issues from an environmental perspective. There is money that has been allocated and invested in affected communities, including Oakey, to reduce exposure, manage those environmental impacts and provide additional mental health and counselling services, which I see as critical. There's access to voluntary blood testing, which has not necessarily been taken up by all, and an epidemiological study to assist in further research on PFAS contamination issues. There's $12.5 million for a national research program looking into the human health effects of prolonged exposure to PFAS and of course $13 million for a PFAS remediation research program to look at the clean-up technologies—water and soil treatment—and how we might investigate and continue that clean-up, right through to some sort of resolution that suits each affected community. I could speak at length about how that has played out in the Oakey community itself and on the Army aviation base—Swartz Barracks—particularly with the drains, which have been in place for many decades and run through and off the base into local drainage systems. That work continues, taking off the top layer through these drains on the base itself, whilst other research is conducted in terms of the impacts of PFAS. A lot of this, while not necessarily any consolation for those with properties on the front line of the impact, does emphasise the fact that at least Australia is leading the charge in terms of international research on PFAS chemical contamination issues. But we certainly have a long way to go. With that quick background about government response over the last couple of years that I've been involved directly in debate while I've been the member for Groom, to come back to the recommendations of the report, I can perhaps just draw together some threads about where we're at at this stage and more particularly about where we need to go to resolve some outstanding issues. There are nine recommendations. The first is essentially, by way of summary, about focusing on coordination. I endorse this very strongly. In my case, it involves Toowoomba Regional Council, relevant Queensland state government departments, particularly health, and of course the relevant Commonwealth departments, keeping in mind that Defence itself is not a health department, so it does need to seek that advice and has continued to do so. Can coordination between the three levels of government and between departments be continually improved? Absolutely. I am encouraging that as best I can. That recommendation also talks about ongoing monitoring. As I mentioned, the government response has been about monitoring. This recommendation says we must continue that, and I acknowledge that recommendation. Of course the government is considering its response to all of these recommendations, but I am very keen to provide a local perspective. The second one talks about continuing and upscaling containment and remediation activities, such as those on the base that I've talked about. The third talks about reviewing medical advice. Again, the advice at this stage is that there is no proven link between PFAS and human health impacts, but it is appropriate that we continue to review that advice. Recommendation 4 is to improve access to voluntary blood testing. It's in place already, but we need to promote that and provide that to those who are interested. I will jump down to recommendation 7, talking about banning PFAS. It is obviously not used on bases nowadays in general terms, but we need to ensure that it's not only been banned there but right across the community. Recommendation 8 is about Stockholm listings. Recommendation 9, reviewing the environmental regulation of Commonwealth lands, is obviously another outcome which I think makes logical sense. Again, it's up to the ministers to respond on behalf of the government. As a local member and member of the government, I am keen to pursue those sorts of issues. I deliberately left recommendations 5 and 6 to come back to. Recommendation 6 talks about financial counselling. I've mentioned that mental health counselling services are being provided. We can ramp up financial counselling where needed. I can see the sense in that. Lastly, recommendation 5 talks about compensation in a tailored way to individual circumstances. I think this is an important point. No two properties are the same. No two affected landholders are in the same situation. Some are close, some are further away, some are residential, some agricultural. Therefore I recognise that while class actions are under way—and people are entitled to participate in those—there are others who are dealing directly with Defence to look at a tailored solution for them. I endorse those activities. I'm glad people are taking up those opportunities. I very much look forward to the government's response to this report's recommendations. 12:53 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I am delighted to rise today to speak on this report before the Chamber of the inquiry into the management of PFAS contamination in and around Defence bases. This has been a very long journey for both the PFAS affected communities across Australia and this parliament. This is the third inquiry into PFAS contamination. I will come to that. How this parliament and the government responds is now of critical importance. I was representing the people of Williamtown and surrounds when this diabolical issue broke. I remember being here in parliament, waking up to a front page of The Newcastle Herald informing me of this toxic plume in Williamtown and surrounds. There was a very hurried meeting that was generated by the community at the Stockton RSL club at the time. Hundreds and hundreds of people turned up. Regretfully, parliament was sitting, so I wasn't present at that very first meeting, but, of course, I have, for many, many years since, been engaged with this issue—and my friend and colleague the member for Paterson has, subsequently, been a strong champion and advocate here in the Australian parliament for those communities in our region. I thank the secretariat and all the members who participated in the inquiry. It was a tough inquiry. People have been traumatised and deeply impacted by this contamination and, through no fault of their own, have woken up to circumstances that anyone would find pretty horrendous. When this inquiry was announced, as I mentioned earlier, this was to be the third parliamentary inquiry into the issue, and I know that people in my area and, I suspect, people in other parts of Australia, approached it with an understandably healthy dose of scepticism. They thought, 'Well, we've been here and done this before. Let's hope that something good can come out of this report.' I have to say that I think that this bipartisan report is an absolutely terrific outcome. It charts a viable pathway forward with some really important recommendations. Indeed, I welcome all nine of the recommendations. The committee recommended that there be a dedicated person, accountable to the Australian parliament, to coordinate a national response to PFAS. That is a critical recommendation. One of the greatest criticisms we heard was that people were having to deal with all sorts of different departments and all different levels of jurisdiction and no-one was really taking responsibility and being that necessary accountable person, which is so critical. The continued investment into the containment of PFAS plumes and the remediation of contaminated land and water sources is, again, critical when you have a situation like at Williamtown, where this toxic chemical continues to leave the base. Here we are three years down the track and we have not been able to contain that plume. So, clearly, there is more work to be done and more investments to be put towards that. The committee also recommended improvements around the blood-testing regime. Whilst there is still science and research being undertaken in the area of health impacts, there are some known associations that we are beginning to see. I believe those recommendations will go some way towards helping to alleviate the mental anguish experienced by people who have, through no fault of their own, found themselves trapped in a contaminated space with nowhere to go. They can't sell or move, with the asset becoming rendered worthless, in many cases. There is also burden of guilt that so many people are living with because they just don't know whether they should stay there with their kids, what they are doing there and what the impact is going to be for their grandkids. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 16:00 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Prior to the division, I was referring to the nine recommendations that were put forward in this report—and I will try to come back to some of those in a little while. I want to put on the record my sincere thanks to all of the members of PFAS affected communities across Australia who made written submissions to this inquiry or took the time to appear personally to share their lived experience, which was often deeply troubling and sometimes quite traumatic. So I really do pay my respects to those people in Williamtown, Katherine and Oakey who gave the committee a very real and tangible experience of what their lives were like due to the impact of PFAS. The committee made nine recommendations. As I mentioned earlier, this is a terrific foundation for moving forward on this issue. Of course, the real game-changer in amongst those recommendations is the one that calls for compensation of financial losses—demonstrably quantifiable losses—including the possibility of buybacks. That is something that a number of really increasingly desperate people in some of these affected communities have been pleading for us to consider for a number of years. It was made very evident to me that, whatever recommendations were to come forward from this report, they needed to be flexible. They needed to enable people to make choices, because we have people living in slightly different circumstances—people who may wish to sever all ties and relocate somewhere; and other people who have very longstanding networks in those communities and want to remain but want to ensure that they can do so in a safe way. It's very pleasing that this report has actually put on the table some options that government should consider to make that compensation for financial losses more meaningful for everyone affected. There isn't much time to go through in great detail each of those nine recommendations but I would refer interested people to them. There is a class action underway and will run its course. Nothing that we have put in this report would get in the way of that, but, in the meantime, people are relying on the government to act. As I said, for the people of Williamtown, it has been more than three years of living in the gravest of circumstances, feeling that they are in limbo, not knowing what the future holds and feeling that they can't leave. Some people feel they can't stay, and yet they're imprisoned on land that they feel is toxic. In the face of such distressing hardship, it is important that we acknowledge the resilience of those communities, because at no point have those residents ever stopped advocating for what they know should be a just outcome for those communities. Now the government really just has to step up, back the people in and respond to this report, urgently. We cannot kick the can down the road. There is no excuse for inaction. We can't be waiting for elections to come and go. It's a long-term responsibility of the Australian government, regardless of who is in government. People living in PFAS-affected communities should not have to wait for an election to get a just outcome in their lives. 16:05 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I'd like to thank the people who contributed to or appeared before the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in the investigation into this PFAS issue, and I rise to discuss some of the recommendations in and issues surrounding this report and how it affects my community in Macquarie. The committee's report is comprehensive and makes a number of recommendations that Labor will certainly review, consider further and request further briefings on so that we can really fill out the picture of what is going on in these sites around the country. The report is particularly timely for my electorate of Macquarie as to the impact of PFAS contamination on people who live around the Richmond RAAF base. Earlier this year, we learnt that there's a 10-kilometre-square plume of PFAS-contaminated groundwater that sits below and spreads beyond the Richmond RAAF base area. All the major on-site drainage systems were found to contain levels of PFAS above the recommended level for drinking. There were also high levels in tributaries to Rickabys Creek and Bakers Lagoon, and levels above safe drinking levels are going into the Hawkesbury River. This is the first tangible detail that we have had on the contamination, even though it was initially publicly flagged in 2016. For two years I have been critical of the delay in getting meaningful testing of all the bores, the soil and the water bodies in the surrounding areas, and I have to say: the testing remains a very slow process. As the reality of the PFAS-contaminated soil has dawned on the local community, the failure of this government's response has become very clear. It shouldn't have needed this inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to precipitate action. But I hope it does precipitate action, because the recommendations in this report go to the heart of the poor response so far on this issue. Recently, close to a hundred Hawkesbury locals attended a briefing by Defence on the latest findings of the testing, but, unfortunately, they were left with more questions than answers. Some are finally receiving testing, after a lot of asking. But it should have happened before now. I think the efforts of East Richmond resident Joanna Pickford have had a big role in the progress that we've seen. Joanna found out that there was likely PFAS contamination on her property and, as the testing evolved and the results came in, she was advised not to eat her home-grown eggs from her three chooks. This was pretty confronting for somebody who had been feeding those eggs to her grandkids for a really long time. Joanna is furious at the lack of information, even now, and the lack of action, as are Alistair and Kellie, who raise cattle in the Hawkesbury, including on land alongside the Richmond RAAF base. Their requests are very reasonable. They want to be personally tested, without having to spend $3,000. They currently don't qualify because they don't live on that property, yet they're on that property all the time, looking after their cattle. It just should be a given. I note that this report recommends that efforts should be made to improve participation in blood testing and notes the potential value of the tests to monitor the effectiveness of measures being taken to reduce the pathways of PFAS exposure. Kellie and Alistair would like the contaminated water to be fenced off from their stock. Again, how reasonable is that? They'd like to have better information via blood testing on their livestock so they can see what, if any, the PFAS levels are. Like them, I struggle to see why this isn't a sensible thing to do given that it's happened for Oakey, Albatross, East Sale and Tindal. I can't see why Richmond shouldn't qualify for that as well. Kellie and Alistair want a lot more information about the possible impact on their cattle. And that's the big thing—it's a question mark; it's a possible impact. They are also frustrated by the general mixed messages they've received—one piece of advice from a food scientist and different recommendations from Defence. It is really confusing for people on the ground. They can't understand why agencies aren't working together. My reading of this report suggests that the committee can't either. Recently, testers authorised by the defence department came to their farm to repeat tests that the New South Wales EPA had already done. The lack of coordination is staggering. Labor has led the way when it comes to standing up for communities affected by PFAS contamination and pushed the government to establish this inquiry. Alongside my shadow ministers, I want to make reference in particular to the member for Paterson, who has fought for a fair go for her community. The report has identified that there needs to be leadership to drive effective, transparent and consistent responses to PFAS contamination across the country. This is something that obviously needs to work across portfolios and across state, territory and local jurisdictions so that there is less confusion about the problem and the response, as has been recommended by this report. There is absolutely a need for my local community in and around the Richmond RAAF Base to have a single point of contact. It's needed not just for the people who currently live here but for people who have lived here in the past and those who've worked on the base. One of the recommendations of this committee report is to upscale the investment in the containment of PFAS and remediate contaminated land and water sources. That is certainly what the residents who live near the RAAF base in Richmond would like to see. For months and months, there has been a contaminated pile of soil secured with tarps sitting at one end of the base, close to homes and a road. To date there has been no plan to remove it or remediate it. It should not be left to the base to find a solution on their own. They need the same support that other bases across the country need. They need experts to be guiding and advising them. And the community deserves to see that soil removed now. I note that one of the recommendations of this report is that the government 'continue to engage with international stakeholders, including past manufacturers of PFAS chemicals, to ensure best practice approaches are taken'. There should be an effort made to speak with former employees of the manufacturers in Australia, like Mike Clifford, who lives in my electorate and worked at the 3M production site in Western Sydney where this chemical was made. This report tells us that, in May 2000, the 3M company, reportedly the largest worldwide producer of PFOS, announced a voluntary phase-out of PFOS in light of emerging scientific evidence about its persistence in the environment. For 20 years Mike worked there, like all employees, oblivious to the potential that the product they were making might have health and environmental effects. Mike recounts a story where he was speaking with one of the staff who cleaned out the tanks where the PFAS was made. The employee remarked to him that, if he wanted to kill some weeds in his garden, this stuff was the stuff to use, and he could happily supply it to him for his garden. These are the sorts of stories and insights that we need to be gathering into a single place to get a really good picture. We also need to listen to the experiences of firefighters, many of whom feel that they have not had the support they need to deal with the PFAS contamination they may have been exposed to. People like Mike Clifford are keen to share their knowledge. He has provided it to the New South Wales EPA, but they have as yet done no follow-up nor asked him for additional detail. He is a resource that we should be accessing. I'm sure that there are many other people with useful and meaningful information. Every fire captain or former fire captain of a Rural Fire Service brigade in the Blue Mountains can probably tell you where in the bush the exercises using this chemical were done. There is a lot of local knowledge about the practices of and locations where PFAS was used, whether the dregs were dumped and where there's a need to have an understanding of all those non-Defence contaminated sites. I return to the issue of my local producers—a relatively small number of people around the Richmond base—and also to the local residents who raise their chooks on the land. There is without a doubt a level of concern. The only way to deal effectively with that concern is by turning uncertainty into certainty. The only way to do that is through science. This is where testing is so important. It's not until the full facts are known that we'll have any idea of what we're dealing with at Richmond. Getting to this point of knowledge has taken way too long, and I know we wouldn't even be anywhere near where we are were it not for Labor. People are relying on government to do the right thing on what is undeniably an extremely difficult issue. I look forward to the government's response to this report and its recommendations. 16:15 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I welcome the inquiry into the management of PFAS contamination in and around Defence bases. The report certainly has been long awaited and welcomed by my community. My community, like others in the country, has recorded levels of substances linked to PFAS legacy firefighting foams containing PFOS and PFOA. Those are the active ingredients in the firefighting foam that was once used extensively worldwide and in Australia, including on Defence bases, due to their effectiveness in fighting liquid-fuel fires. In Townsville, this has impacted on Lavarack Barracks, the area around Lavarack Barracks, RAAF Base Townsville and the communities around the RAAF base. PFAS contains a group of chemicals that have actually been used for decades in firefighting. It is highly effective, but we now need to do something about the impact that this may have on communities. In 2004, Defence commenced phasing out its use of legacy firefighting foam containing PFOS and PFOA as active ingredients and transitioned to a more environmentally safe and friendly product. The release of PFAS into the environment has become a concern because we have learned that these chemicals can persist in humans, animals, the environment and water. In my electorate of Herbert, it does not appear that we have PFOS contamination in our drinking water, which is a very positive outcome for our community. That is not to say that PFOS will not be found in bores and houses around the bases. In March 2017, the Department of Defence commenced a detailed environmental investigation into the prevalence of PFAS at and in the vicinity of RAAF Base Townsville. In October 2017, Defence extended their detailed environmental investigation into the prevalence of PFAS at and in the vicinity of Lavarack Barracks. Labor welcomes these investigations as the results from the investigations will be provided around the same time, which will reduce the possibility of uncertainty for residents in my community. The objective of these environmental investigations is to identify the nature and extent of PFAS in the local environment as a result of the use of this legacy firefighting foam at both of those bases in my community. There were three stages to these investigations, which included a preliminary site investigation, a detailed site investigation and a human health and ecological risk assessment. The final stage in my community will be conducted pending the findings of the detailed site investigation. Townsville is the largest garrison city in the nation. My community values the social and economic contribution that our current and ex-serving members, our veterans and their families make in our community and in the broader region. I am very well aware of the numerous community consultation briefings that the Department of Defence has held in my community. I have attended as many of these consultation meetings as possible and, where I have not been able to attend, I've ensured that someone from my office has been there to listen to the issues raised by community members. I thank the people in my community who took time out to attend these hearings and express their views. The ongoing effort of the Department of Defence to keep the residents of Townsville updated must be commended, and I thank the first assistant secretary for infrastructure, Chris Birrer, for his involvement with these walk-in sessions. I've listened to members of my community who are widely concerned about the impacts of PFAS. In 2016 and 2017, I joined Townsville resident Norm on a PFAS tour around identified areas of concern. Norm has called Townsville his home for many years, and he is an avid and keen birdwatcher. He has conducted his own research in the local environment and on the potential impacts on our birdlife and other natural assets. He told me, from his years of birdwatching, that the number of birds has fallen and that there have been significant changes to the environment. The people in my community are well-connected to our natural environment and resources. Like any close community, we are concerned about the impact of PFAS on our natural resources. Norm's local knowledge and diligence has been most helpful, not only to me and my office but also to the Department of Defence, and his submission to the joint standing committee clearly demonstrated his knowledge in this area. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report on the management of PFAS contaminations around Defence bases was released yesterday, and I'm eagerly awaiting the government's response to how the recommendations listed in this report will be addressed. Labor has led the way when it comes to standing up for communities affected by PFAS contamination, and it was Labor that pushed the government to establish this inquiry. I note the committee's comments in their report that highlight the importance of developing and implementing a national environmental management plan. Importantly, this will provide nationally consistent standards to guide the ongoing development of policies across a range of agencies at all levels of government. The committee's report is comprehensive and makes a number of recommendations, which Labor will review and consider further after the assistant defence minister briefs the shadow defence minister. I have followed this investigation closely to ensure that my community is kept aware of the situation regarding PFAS. This is an issue that the federal government must continue to take seriously in order to ensure that we achieve the very best outcomes for all affected regions in our community. The federal government must take action to implement the recommendations of this report for the benefit of all people in our community—and, across communities in this country, the impact is quite different and diverse. 16:22 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I want to thank the member for Bowman and our NT senator, Malarndirri McCarthy, for their work on this important inquiry into the management of PFAS contamination, an issue that has affected and continues to affect my electorate of Solomon. I also want to acknowledge and thank all those who attended the various hearings of the inquiry and gave evidence, including, of course, the families, organisations and individuals from the Northern Territory and from my electorate of Solomon. I'm proud that Labor has led the way when it comes to standing up for communities affected by PFAS contamination, and I acknowledge all the members who are fighting for their communities. I particularly want to mention the members for Lingiari, Paterson, Newcastle, Herbert, Blair, Macquarie—and other members—as well as the unions representing the firefighters who have been exposed to these chemicals over many years. I want to acknowledge Peter Marshall from the United Firefighters Union, representing our airport firies in my electorate, Erina Early from United Voice, and all the other unions around the country that are representing firefighters. The NT senator Malarndirri McCarthy has been working alongside the local member of the legislative assembly in the NT, Sandra Nelson, who has been advocating very strongly for her community of Katherine, which is where the Tindal Air Force base is. So I want to acknowledge Sandra and also the Katherine mayor, Fay Miller, who has also been taking up the fight and really advocating hard to the federal government. The electorate that I represent, Solomon, incorporates the Darwin RAAF Base, so PFAS and PFOA contamination has become an issue for us. The waterways coming off the Darwin RAAF Base, right in the centre of Darwin there, in particular Rapid Creek and Ludmilla Creek but also Sadgroves Creek—there's been testing throughout those creeks. The investigation area, where flow has come off that RAAF base, extends from down in Bayview and Stuart Park all the way around the coast to Millner and the suburb of Rapid Creek, where the beautiful Rapid Creek spills out into Darwin Harbour. That area of land covers a massive swathe of my electorate and, although our test results are better—that is, less contamination—than, say, the city of Katherine, near the Tindal air base, there was still PFAS detected in our waterways, soils and seafood. They're small amounts but still something that we take seriously. Rapid Creek and Ludmilla Creek in particular have long been popular spots with locals for fishing and swimming. Because Rapid Creek is quite close to the airport, there have been Aboriginal Territorians who have camped in the bush by Rapid Creek for decades, just a stone's throw from the airport, and have drunk that water, living right there on the creek. So I was very keen to get the word out, right from the outset, when we found out about the PFAS, when the Department of Defence reported the issue. As members would know, it was known about for some time before that, which is unfortunate, but we are where we are. But when I became aware of this, I talked to the Larrakia Nation Aboriginal community and made sure that warnings were given to people living along that creek as soon as possible and also to the men, women, kids and families who had been fishing in those creeks. So the warnings went out, and the testing regime started. I want to acknowledge the work of the NT government, whose departments got to work making sure that testing regimes were put in place, and I want to acknowledge those members of the Darwin community for their vigilance on this issue and their advocacy in making sure that we not only got the testing done but that we got action. Through them and through our advocacy, we got this report, which has meant that we've got some good recommendations to move forward with. Defence, from my point of view, did pretty well. There were information stands at big events. There were evening information sessions. Once I put the commander of our RAAF base in touch with the Aboriginal community, they acted quite quickly to establish contact and make sure that the Aboriginal organisation in my electorate got information out to those who were staying along the creek. That was done pretty quickly. It's a credit to those organisations, and it's actually increased the contact and communication between those two important organisations for our city. Obviously, not everyone can be reached through traditional media. That's why it was important for people to get out onto the ground, talk with people face to face, give the latest information and answer questions. So I do want to acknowledge that work from Defence. I did hear from one of the other members that the information about some of these sessions may not have been made available as widely as possible in other electorates. That is obviously something that they must continue to work on. But my experience has been that they've been generally very open and honest about their work with the community. The committee's report is comprehensive and makes a number of recommendations. I want to once more commend the work of the NT senator my friend Senator Malarndirri McCarthy and all those other members whose electorates are affected. Finally, I want to echo the advice I've given in the past to members of my electorate about what is a goer and what is not a goer in terms of fishing and collecting shellfish in my electorate of Solomon. For fishing in Darwin creeks, there has been PFAS detected—albeit small. So people in Darwin—around Rapid Creek and Ludmilla Creek, in particular—should continue to avoid catching and eating freshwater fish from Rapid Creek. However, normal serves—two a week—of our wonderful seafood, prawns and crab can still continue to be eaten from those waterways. So it is good news that our constituents can continue to do what they have done for a long time, and that's eat shellfish out of the estuary side of these creeks. But, again, avoid fish from the freshwater end because, without the cleansing of our beautiful Darwin Harbour, they continue to be too much of a risk. I want to finally acknowledge everyone who is working so hard on this very difficult issue. I do feel for those electorates that this really serious issue of PFAS contamination has affected and wish those communities all the best. We will continue to make sure that the people of Darwin and Palmerston have the best possible information. 16:32 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise to commend those involved in the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's report Inquiry into the management of PFAS contamination in and around Defence bases November 2018 and to put on the record some of the things that are happening in the electorate of Lalor around both the Laverton and Point Cook RAAF bases. I attended a community information session at RAAF Base Williams at Laverton on 9 August 2018. That night, I listened carefully to the presentations that were given, and I raised some issues that I thought were pertinent with those responsible. One of those is that the Laverton base is unique in that we are in a situation where Defence have divested part of the asset—the runway that is now the built environment suburb called Williams Landing. This is a unique situation in Australia. It's particularly pertinent around PFAS investigation and ensuring that we identify all the possible sites that could have been used as firegrounds and training in the history of RAAF Base Williams at Laverton. I spoke to the developer of Williams Landing, Cedar Woods, on 17 August about progress and community consultation. I have heard from some members of the community that they have now received some information in their letterboxes about the PFAS contamination processes. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the second consultation because I was busy with other things, but I have since written to Mr Luke McLeod, the assistant secretary of the PFAS investigation and management branch, putting in writing some questions that I need to have answered and that the community need to have answered about where they are in terms of identifying sites, particularly those that are off the current RAAF base site. This is unique in another way, and that is that, in terms of local government areas, the current RAAF Base Laverton site is the border for— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:35 to 16:43 Ms RYAN 249224 The RAAF base at Laverton, as it exists now, sits solely in the Hobsons Bay local government area, while Williams Landing, which is the suburb built on the divested asset, sits wholly in the Wyndham local government area. That makes this all the more complex but all the more important that, when Defence are dealing with these issues, they are speaking to both local governments and including both communities—those who sit beside the Laverton base and those who sit in the Wyndham LGA in Williams Landing. I'd also make the comment that, while Julia Gillard was still the member for Lawler, the Point Cook RAAF base underwent heavy clean-up for contaminated soil, but it would still be worth it for Defence to make a statement or do some surveys to give the community surety that all of the PFAS was cleaned up in that clean-up. Debate adjourned. Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources 12757 Report 12757 16:45 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I rise to talk about the report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources inquiry into the mining and resources industry. It's entitled Keep it in the regions: mining and resources industry support for businesses in regional economies. Having read the recommendations of this report, I think it is quite remarkable that government members, who will not lift a finger for workers in this parliament, want to pretend that they support recommendations providing support for workers in this sector of our economy and in their electorates. We've been watching now for some time members of government asserting support for workers in their electorates, and yet, whenever the opportunity arises to support workers in the parliament, they go missing. They go missing because there's a big difference between word and deed. It's one thing to say something; it's another thing to do something. The member for Dawson, who has now just joined us, and the member for New England, who of course has suggested they support workers in Queensland and around the country, are really just outrageously lying to their electorates. The reality is: the member for Dawson is someone who says one thing and yet refuses to support workers when he is here. We saw that with his confected support for penalty rates. We saw the member for Dawson pretend to support labour hire workers. Of course he doesn't support changing labour hire arrangements; otherwise he would support Labor's position on 'same job, same pay'. He does not. We've heard the member for Dawson say he supports restoring penalty rates, but, when his bill was moved by the opposition, he refused to vote with the opposition except if the motion was going to fail. In fact, he pretended that there was going to be back pay arising from that order, which was never true, as his justification for no longer supporting a position he said he was supporting in his electorate. We have heard, time and time again, the member for Dawson saying one thing to the constituents in his seat but acting very differently in this place. This recommendation, which, as I understand it, has been ostensibly supported by the member for New England and the member for Dawson, is in keeping with that. They say one thing and yet do another. There have been ample opportunities in this parliamentary term, and indeed in the last parliamentary term, for members of government, if they were interested in looking after working people, to cross the floor and support Labor's position. The Leader of the Opposition moved a private member's bill to restore penalty rates. Where was the member for Dawson when that private member's bill was being considered and when we were seeking to have that private member's bill enacted? He was voting with the government to stop bringing that bill on in the House to be enacted. Again and again, the member for Dawson—and now we've got a new arrival, the member for New England—pretended to be the workers' friend. Well, we know that is not the case, and increasingly the constituents of Dawson also know that is not the case. Labor, of course, have been announcing policies to respond to the fact that wages are falling in this country in many sectors of the economy. Wages have been flatlining as a result of the failures of the government to respond to any concerns of working people, and we have seen the growth of insecure work. The government likes to pretend there's been no change to casualisation. I'll just use one statistic. The ABS has said that 29 per cent of Queensland's workforce are deemed to be casual. Add to that other workers who are not getting enough work, part-time workers who are not getting sufficient hours and so-called independent contractors who are not genuinely independent contractors and you see a problem in the labour market that's not being addressed by this government. In some ways, the government members who choose not to support this have more integrity than the member for Dawson, because the member for Dawson says one thing but does the exact opposite in parliament. At least those members of the government who don't want to do anything don't go and tell their constituents that they will do something. That's what the member for Dawson does; he says one thing and does another. For the last five years, Labor has been announcing policies to respond to two key areas. Firstly, we need to see Australians get a pay rise. This government has presided over the lowest wage growth in a generation. For the last five years, wages have been flatlining and they continue to be a real problem for households. That's why household debt is growing in this country. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:51 to 17:38 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 I want to continue to reflect upon the recommendations of this committee's report. As I understand it, the committee has done some good work, and you'll hear about that from some Labor members of parliament who sat on the committee. To that extent, I'm happy to defer to the committee members in relation to the good work done on the recommendations that have been made. But I think it is important that I point out the disingenuousness of the recommendation that's been initiated by government members, even though it's certainly supported by my Labor colleagues— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:39 to 17:51 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 As I was saying, I understand there was some good work undertaken by the committee and I'm sure other members will reflect on that. But I just wanted to make clear that whilst government members have supported a recommendation that would appear to respond to problems in the labour market, we have real difficulty believing the sincerity of those government members. There are real problems in the labour market. Job security is a growing problem for many, many workers. Wage growth is at an all-time low; it is the lowest wage growth in a generation. But we don't see the government attending to these things, and I think that's chiefly because they have a callous disregard for working people—an indifference at best. They have an enmity towards unions that might represent employees, and it is that ideological predisposition that really does underline their motives and their inclinations. So whilst it may well be that government members, members of a government divided, seek to resonate in their communities about the real crying need for labour market reform, we don't see anything happening in the chamber. We don't see anything happening on the government benches. They're not to be believed. In the end it's your deeds, not your words, that you should be judged by, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe government members are genuine in their concerns about job security, whether Australians get a pay rise or ensuring that workers get a place at the bargaining table. There are no policies enunciated by the government that reflect these concerns. For that reason, whilst I wouldn't agree exactly with its construction, I agree with the tenor of the recommendation that goes to making changes to the Fair Work Act and making improvements to workers' lives. We have great difficulty believing it is a proposition genuinely held by those government members. 17:53 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson As the member for Gorton skulks out of the chamber, I would say I agree with a couple of things he said. One of them is that deeds speak more than words. If you have a look at the member for Gorton's record, he's someone who gets up here, puffs his chest out and says he's a champion of the worker. What a fraud and what a phoney. He's like the dog that bites the hand that feeds it. What did he do about the casualisation issue, which has been going on for years and years and years on end, while he was a minister in the Gillard and Rudd governments? I'll tell you what he did for the workers as a minister in the Gillard and Rudd governments. He was actually the immigration minister who presided over a lot of the rorting of the foreign visa system, the 457 foreign worker visa— Ms Chesters interjecting— Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 I hear 'changes'. These changes that apparently happened under his watch still allowed the rorts, because they still went on. We were the ones that actually ended the 457 visa system. So what a fraud; what a phoney! The only thing that that fraud and phoney said that was correct was that the report was a good report and did have good recommendations. I'm proud to speak to that report, as a committee member of that inquiry. The report, Keep it in the regions: mining and resources industry support for businesses in regional economies, is a result of the outstanding work done by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources—an inquiry which I actually urged the committee chair, the member for New England, to undertake, and I urged the resources minister to provide the terms of reference for the inquiry. The mining and resource sector is a huge influence in the local economy of my North Queensland electorate, due to the proximity of the Bowen Basin and the soon-to-be-opened Galilee Basin. Again talking about frauds: these champions of the workers can't bring themselves to support the opening of a new coalmining basin; they want to dog the workers in Central and North Queensland again. These frauds come to the table and pretend that they're the workers' friends but they will never stand up for coalminers. Well, I will, all the time. Thousands of residents in my electorate have raised concerns about a range of issues, calling my office, writing letters, sending emails and signing petitions. The biggest issues have been extended payment terms adopted by mining companies, the casualisation of the mining workforce, and the 100 per cent fly-in fly-out workforces at some of the mines. I'm pleased to say that these issues were well canvassed during the inquiry. Members gained a greater understanding of the impact that these issues have on local communities. As a result, this report now provides a number of recommendations to the government that fully address those issues, and I want to talk through some individually. On payment terms, we had a situation where businesses—small businesses, mainly, but there were even medium-sized ones and some large local ones—were coming to me in my electorate saying that they had cases where they were waiting 90 days, 120 days and in excess of 120 days, which was clearly ridiculous. How long is a business supposed to wait to get paid by a multinational? How long would we let it go for—up to a year? That would be inconceivable. So we had to do something about this. The standard that the public expects and the standard that the suppliers of these mining companies expected was 30 days. They have to do it sometimes in less than that—in seven days, and sometimes payment on delivery—but the mining companies get payment as soon as supplies are loaded onto a boat or just beforehand. If it's good enough for the mining companies to have that arrangement, it is good enough to provide 30 days. I ran a campaign alongside this inquiry where I urged people to go onto makeit30days.com.au and sign up to that. Recommendations 5 to 9 of the report effectively call for legislation to have minimum payment terms—the time in which you have to pay—of 30 days. This committee has already paid huge dividends. As a result of the pressure that I've put on companies through that petition website and through the release of this report, companies have voluntarily brought their payment terms into line with what the community wants—30 days. Peabody is now doing 30 days, Anglo is now doing 30 days and BHP is now doing 30 days—and Glencore and Adani were doing 30 days all along. So that has been a win. Hopefully that's going to continue. If it doesn't, if we find that others don't adopt it, the government will have to act in line with the recommendations in our report to legislate those minimum payment terms. On casualisation of the mining workforce, Labor like to puff out their chest on this issue—it is a big issue—but they didn't do anything about it when they were in government. So it's quite rich for them to come in here and say, 'You're not doing anything.' We're fighting for those people. When you were minister, Deputy Speaker Laundy, we joined you and you did some fine work in helping end a lockout of workers at Oaky Creek. That was your work, your negotiation, that helped with that. So we've done our part in helping on this issue, and we continue to put pressure on. It's not ethically right for people to work for years and years on end, stuck in a job as a casual, when they actually want to be a full-time worker. Recommendation 19 of this report is to amend the Fair Work Act to prohibit the replacement of directly employed full-time workers with permanent casual employees. It goes on to say that casuals should now get the right, after six months, to convert to full-time work. I have to tell you: the pressure of this committee, the pressure of my individual action on this, has led WorkPac, the biggest employer of casuals in the mining industry, to come to me to say they're writing to every single one of their employees and offering them conversion to permanent work within six months. That wasn't the Labor Party; they never did anything about it when they were in government. It was the pressure that we've been applying that's led to that. I have to say that, as a result of that pressure as well, today, a couple of days after this report was handed down, BHP made an announcement of 350 new full-time permanent local jobs. They're offering it to local workers in my region who were once employed as casuals and are now going to be permanent workers. This is as a result of the pressure that we've been putting on. It's a result of this committee's report. It is going to be in mines which previously were 100 per cent fly-in fly-out. It will be locals who are permanent workers at those mines in Daunia and Caval Ridge. Fly-in fly-out is also a problem. Section 18 of the report wants to remove incentives for mining companies to employ FIFO workers instead of locals. Again, those 100-per-cent-FIFO mines are now going to have hundreds of people working at them who are locals with permanent jobs. Other key recommendations in this report will provide major benefits to regional communities, including returning a serious proportion of the royalties from mining operations to communities in mining regions and giving local businesses a fair opportunity to secure business with those major mining companies, because sometimes the rigmarole they have to go through is so complex. It will ensure localism where there are mines. Where the hole is dug in the ground, we want to see opportunity and wealth created. The chair of this committee, the member for New England, has said a few times: 'Where is the Dallas of North Queensland? Where is the Dallas of Central Queensland?' We don't have towns that have huge wealth like that, even though, over in Texas, Dallas was built off the back of oil. We need cities like that and we need wealth returned to regional centres like that from mining companies. State governments also have to take note of that because they rip out the royalties of mining operations and they don't return all of it to that area. They don't even return a serious proportion of it. It needs to change. I thank the member for New England for taking it up. I thank the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia for giving us this report. I thank all of the Labor members who were on this committee. I think we worked very well together. We certainly got to grill a lot of the mining companies very well together. I think we can all be very proud to say that our report, even before the government has responded, has led to some serious action. It has led to an improvement in payment terms by big mining companies to small and medium business. It has led to decisions like BHP made today, where they're offering permanent jobs for locals, not casual jobs. It has led to, for instance, WorkPac saying that there can be a conversion after six months from casual to permanent work. It's led to some good outcomes which are going to improve regional areas. That's what mining should do. 18:04 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo The member for Dawson should get an award for creative writing! Talk about rewriting history and thinking that this report has led to a change in the culture and behaviour of the big mining companies! I beg to differ. I would like to begin by quoting from an article in the Daily Mercury that was published on Tuesday, July 17: 'Same job same pay: ALP vows to crack down on "dodgy labour hire"'. It states: The Mackay region is "ground zero" for unfair labour hire practices, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten … has pledged to crack down on labour hire companies that "rip off and exploit" … I could go on, because it goes on to outline Labor's policy announcement, which we made back in July. It is only because of the pressure of some hardworking Labor candidates in those regional seats in Queensland and the senators making this an issue that we actually got government members to agree to this recommendation in the report that's before us. I want to acknowledge that those two paragraphs are a step forward by the Liberal-National Party, but they are only a recommendation. When the chair of this committee was the Deputy Prime Minister of this country, when those rorts were going on, he did nothing. And now we're lauding him because he's the chair of a committee putting forward a recommendation? When he was at the cabinet table, he could have put forward those changes—changes that Labor proposed back in July—and actually done something about it. And, when we talk about 'casual', it was the Labor Party at the last election that put forward the need to crack down on the misuse of the term 'casual' and to crack down on the exploitation of workers and the increase of insecure work. I've had the opportunity in some of my duties to visit a number of the communities. I can remember being in Moranbah and speaking to the workers at the camps there. They were on a BHP camp, and most of them were labour-hire workers. Those workers talked to me about the fact that they were doing the same job as the person working beside them, the same job that they had done for decades, and yet were being paid less because they were working for labour hire. At the moment that is legal. This government has failed. Despite the fact that the workers raised it over and over again, this government has vilified their union, the CFMMEU, for speaking up about the issues. I also met a family in Moranbah. They lived there but worked at another mine. This particular worker had to fly to Brisbane to fly back to work in a mine that was 100 per cent fly-in fly-out. This isn't new. This is what is happening, and all this government says, through the person who's now the chair of this committee, is: 'We've put forward a recommendation. Job done. Clear conscience.' Not good enough! Where is the legislation? Where are the changes? You've been in for five years, government. Where is the legislation and where are the changes to fix that situation? A family should not have to go through that. A worker who's got the skills should not have to fly to Brisbane to be flown back. Then we talk about Tieri and what happened there. And there are the crocodile tears coming from the member for Dawson, the member for Flynn and the member for Capricornia! They stood up in the House and repeated an allegation that was false in question time because they wanted to dirty up the CFMMEU. Those workers were locked out. They were locked out by their company, and their company got to bring in labour hire and pay them less. That's a broken Fair Work Act. This government has not backed in Labor's proposal to end those lockouts, to fix that problem. No, this government's not doing that. Instead, those opposite are championing the fact that they've put forward a committee recommendation. That's not good enough. They've been in for five years. They should put forward the legislation to prevent what happened in Tieri from happening somewhere else. Far too many Central Queensland mineworkers—and not just Central Queensland; it's happening in mining everywhere—are being forced to do drive-in drive-out work for labour hire. I also met some mineworkers in Rockhampton. One of the workers I met there told me that the company had redefined the term 'full-time equivalent'. This person worked for the labour hire company. They had 'full-time equivalent' next to their name. They had to do the same work and wear the same uniform; they had the same responsibilities and the same reporting structures, but they were paid less. They were paid just above the award but much less than their co-workers. It is a loophole that is being exploited by the mining industry, and this government have sat on their hands and done nothing about it for five years. Another speaker brought up the changes around 457 visas: 'Let's laud us. We've done all the great things. We've cracked down on the fraud with 457 visas.' Well, who's the fraud? The 457 visas may not exist in those terms, but the 482 visa does—and guess what? Those numbers are back through the roof, and the exploitation is just as high. Who's the real fraud here? Changing the name has not changed the culture. But it doesn't just end with the exploitation of those on 482 visas who are coming into these communities and doing this work. We're also finding international students working in the mining sector. Can you believe it? They're here to study and they're working in the mining sector. Backpackers are working in the mining sector. The workforce issues in mining are out of control, and this government has done very little to turn it around. I reckon that a lot of the people in Mackay, Gladstone, Tieri and Moranbah are saying: 'It's too little too late from this government. It's backed in the multinationals for far too long.' They want a government that is going to stand up and reform this. Labor has been active on this on the ground. In July we announced we would crack down on dodgy labour hire companies that rip off and exploit workers. We've also said that we would change the definition of 'casual' and establish an objective test of what it means to be casual to end this ridiculous concept of 'permanent casual'. We've also said that we will address the labour market problems that we have, where precarious work is increasing. This is our commitment. We want to see an end to what this government has created. We are heading towards a low-paid, easy-to-hire, easy-to-fire society where job security is being undermined. It's putting pressure on wages and families. But the government is quite divided here. We've got some people on this committee saying there should be reforms to the Fair Work Act, yet the minister responsible is backing in big business when it comes to this matter and is intervening in Fair Work cases. The minister wouldn't intervene in the penalty rates case—'No, no, we have to respect the independence of the Fair Work Commission'—but is intervening in this case. She's intervening in the WorkPac case, a case where the unions and the workers won against the companies, saying, 'If you do the same roster and the same hours with the same expectations, and if you know 12 months in advance what you're going to be doing, then you're technically a full-time employee and not a casual.' While they won that case on the argument, the government is now intervening and backing in business. That's the kind of hypocrisy we get from this government. When they feel under threat, when their own jobs are under threat, when we've got Labor candidates working really hard on the ground, setting the agenda, talking to people about what really matters, that's when we start to see a little bit of movement from this government. Well, they should go further: in the first week of February, let's see the legislation that makes sure that the same job gets the same pay. Put it up so that we can all debate it and see it happen. Let's make it bipartisan to ensure that we end the exploitation of casuals and that we see a restoration of the original definition of 'casual'. Let's see an end to permanent casuals. Put forward the legislation, and Labor will be happy to work with you to make sure we bring it about. We have far too many labour hire workers here in this country that are being treated poorly by major companies, who flick them away and say, 'You're no longer welcome here.' They don't even get the protections of unfair dismissal. The vast majority—84 per cent—of labour hire employees are technically casual, yet, in a lot of cases, they're doing full-time work. This has to end. Whilst these two particular paragraphs in the report are welcome and it's an acknowledgement that some in the government understand this is a problem—they've finally woken up to what their communities are so upset about—they have to go further. Use this report to bring about legislation. Tell the minister responsible for industrial relations to back off her case, because whatever you've said today means nothing if she continues to back in the case with the Fair Work Commission and the employers. 18:14 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I was and am a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the member for Dawson is quite right—we worked very well together, both the members of the Labor opposition and the members of the government. I'd like to commend the member for New England on his chairing of this committee through this process. I think we were all dealt with very fairly. We all got to have our say and, indeed, make a very solid contribution to the recommendations. I think it was a very collegial process, and I think, as he mentioned in his speech or in his foreword, there are probably more examples of how the parliament works well in this way than people often think. People see in question time the vaudeville and the antics, but they don't get to see how the sausage is made behind the scenes, which is a bit of a shame sometimes. I just want to quickly go through some of the recommendations. There has been a lot of attention on the issue of the recommendation to review casualisation and replace casual with permanent workers, which, of course, I support very strongly. But I just want to go to recommendation 1—and there is probably a reason why it's recommendation 1 and not further down—which is: what became clear through the inquiry is that there is an information vacuum. It was very difficult for mining companies, local communities, mayors and councils to really give any concrete answers as to what sort of information is out there, in any meaningful way. So the first recommendation is an important one, which is: let's find a way to collect the data in a meaningful way. It will have very big implications, if that is done, in terms of where dollars get spent—and we are talking about big public dollars when it comes to infrastructure and to social services in the regions. Knowing this sort of information is critical. I find it, frankly, quite surprising that it hasn't been done before. So I would certainly urge the government to take a very strong look at that first recommendation and find a way to make sure that that is implemented as government policy. As to recommendation 2, the Nationals, I must say, were very keen to see this get in—and, indeed, those of us on the Labor side have seen how Royalties for Regions works in WA, and it has been kept by the WA Labor government because they recognise that it does work. It has been tweaked. There were some problems with the Royalties for Regions scheme in WA in its original genesis. A few too many gold-plated kerbs and roundabouts were built in some towns. I think the Mark McGowan-led government now in WA has a more sensible approach to how the Royalties for Regions scheme should be better implemented. This is an important recommendation. It goes to the title of the report, Keep it in the regions, which is really about this: as the member for Dawson referred to, let's keep more of the money where the mines are dug; let's not truck it all out. We had a number of witnesses come forward to the committee saying that it broke their hearts sometimes to see the amount of wealth that was being trucked or railed out of their local communities to head to the big cities. We've got recommendations here about true local procurement. This was a very big issue, with local suppliers feeling locked out of the supply chain. Importantly, we're not just talking about the big mining companies that are the principal operators. We're also talking about the second- and third-tier companies that get subcontracted to do this work on behalf of the big mining companies. We want to make sure they also have policies on local procurement. If the government can find its way to implementing these recommendations, and to talking to whoever they need to talk to, to make these things happen, I think that will go a long way to alleviating some of the concerns in the local regions. We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars that could be poured back into local communities, simply by mining companies and their second- and third-tier contractors employing local firms to do their work. Don't fly in operators from France or other places. Don't bring in the big engineering companies from overseas. Contract it out to local suppliers. I think what that will do, of course, is increase economic activity in those local towns. Men and women will see that there's work available, not just on the sites themselves but in supplying those sites. That will increase the impetus for population growth in those areas, and not just in the short term but in an ongoing way. So this is a very important recommendation. I'll go through more if I have time, but I just wanted to say: I think this is a really good report. I was very proud to be part of this process. The member for Dawson has probably stolen some of my best lines! But this report has made a difference already. Whether or not this ends up sitting on a shelf in the minister's office and not getting acted on—which would be a great shame—it has made a difference already. We have had the mining companies come to us and, as a direct result of the hearings of this committee in places like Mackay, Rockhampton, Port Hedland and elsewhere, and as a direct result of the evidence about long payment terms to suppliers, they have changed their policies. We heard evidence that people were being blown out with their payment terms by 60 to 120 days. How a small supplier can manage that is just beyond the pale. In some cases, we're talking about millions of dollars outstanding. Men and women employees obviously have to continue to be paid by the local engineering firms and whatnot, and of course the owner of a firm would be waiting on the money from the company, but, if it hasn't come in, he's still got to pay the wages. A simple change like this means nothing to these big companies—to simply to pay their suppliers earlier—but it would have a massive effect. This is the testimony we heard: it would have a huge effect on local communities and local economies; it would give local suppliers confidence, it would give them certainty, and also, frankly, it would make them more willing to contract for the work. We heard evidence that some people can't afford to not tender for the work, but we also heard evidence that some suppliers said, 'I'm not going to tender for those mining contracts. It's just not worth waiting so long for the payment.' Of course, that depresses economic activity. I strongly suggest that the government takes that very seriously—true local procurement and the payment terms—because, if we can get payment terms down to 30 days as a matter of course, not just for mining companies but across the board, and find some way, in terms of national policy, that big firms have to pay their local suppliers within 30 days, I think we're going to see a very significant economic improvement for small businesses. And same to you, Deputy Speaker Laundy, with Christmas coming! So there are a number of recommendations that I'm very proud of. The other one that people touched on was the housing provision. We heard evidence about the FIFOs and the deleterious effect that the FIFOs have on communities—not just the communities but the workers themselves. We also heard evidence about how it distorts the market by having the workers fly in and fly out. There are recommendations about how we can best deal with that. We need to make sure that housing is looked after, not just for the workforce but for the local communities. Principally, this is all about making sure that more wealth is kept in the regions. Being a member of parliament for the seat of Lyons in Tasmania, big on my agenda is keeping more money in the regions, more employment in the regions, more jobs in the regions and more services in the regions. That's what we need to do and that's what this report seeks to achieve. I'm happy to say that we worked very well together with government members and I hope that we continue to do so, even when the next inquiry is announced for this committee. With only 10 sitting days of this parliament scheduled before the middle of next year, I'm not sure how much work will be done if an inquiry is announced before then, but we will take our chances. It's not my role to commend this to the House, of course—that's up to the chair and the deputy chair, and they've done that—but I'm very proud to be part of this report. Frankly, no matter who forms government after the next election, I think there's a lot of really good reading in the report, and I think the country will be a lot better off if it takes into account the recommendations made by the committee. Thank you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 I thank the member for Lyons. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:24