PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS

2019-02-12 45 1 8 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 12 February 2019

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

PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS 1 PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS Speaker's Panel 1 12:01 The SPEAKER 00APG Pursuant to standing order 17, I lay on the table my warrant revoking the nomination of the honourable member for Calare to be a member of the Speaker's panel. BILLS 1 BILLS Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018, Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018, Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018, Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2018, Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2018, Modern Slavery Bill 2018, My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018, Office of National Intelligence Bill 2018, Office of National Intelligence (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018, Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018, Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018, Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018, Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018, Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018, Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016, Road Vehicle Standards Bill 2018, Road Vehicle Standards (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018, Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2018, Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2018, Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2018, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Promoting Sustainable Welfare) Bill 2018, Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018, Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017 1

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

Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018

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

Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2018

Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

Modern Slavery Bill 2018

My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018

Office of National Intelligence Bill 2018

Office of National Intelligence (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018

Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018

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

Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018

Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018

Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016

Road Vehicle Standards Bill 2018

Road Vehicle Standards (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018

Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2018

Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2018

Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2018

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Promoting Sustainable Welfare) Bill 2018

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

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

Assent 1 Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018, Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 1

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

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

Returned from Senate 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Electoral Matters Committee 1 Reference 1 12:02 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a message from the Senate informing the House of a resolution of the Senate referring to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters established in the next Parliament the matter of a review of the operation of the amendments, dealing with foreign donations and related matters, made by the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018. The message read as follows— (1) That the following matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters established in the next Parliament, for commencement of a review on the second anniversary of the Royal Assent for the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018: A review of the operation of the amendments, dealing with foreign donations and related matters, made by the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018. The review will consider: (a) the operation of the amendments during the federal election immediately following the enactment of the amendments; (b) the clarity of public guidance products issued by regulators; (c) how the bill's objectives can continue to be achieved in the most effective way while minimising red tape; and (d) any impacts from the amendments that are relevant to issue-based advocacy. (2) That the committee report within 6 months of receiving the reference. Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia 2 Membership 2 12:02 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Waters has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia and Senator Siewert has been appointed a member of the committee. BILLS 2 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1) Bill 2017 2

Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1) Bill 2017

Consideration of Senate Message 2 12:04 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell Schedule 2, page 27 (line 1) to page 29 (line 23), omit the Schedule. (—) (): I move: That the amendment be agreed to. 12:04 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Labor is pleased that the government has seen sense in removing schedule 2 from the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1) Bill 2017. Schedule 2 of this bill gave taxpayers the choice to self-assess the effective life of certain intangible depreciating assets. Labor said, when the bill came before the House, that we would support schedule 1 but not schedule 2. We said that we could see some modest policy argument for it in good fiscal times. If the rivers of gold that flowed in the Howard and Costello years were still flowing, then it might be possible to make fiscally profligate decisions such as this. But we were then told that the measure would cost the budget $80 million over the forward estimates, and we could not in good conscience support that. Our reason for that is simple: net government debt now is around $350 billion, which is almost $14,000 for every person in Australia. That contrasts with when the coalition won office, when net debt was just $175 billion. Gross debt now exceeds half a trillion dollars—five times as large as when then opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull launched his debt truck back in 2009. If they were being honest about the state of government debt in the country, they should be commissioning a debt road train to replace their debt truck. We found out, when the government announced it last year, that the government was dropping schedule 2. The government said: Given the lack of parliamentary support the Government has decided not to proceed with this measure … When the government, in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, on 17 December 2018, announced that it wouldn't proceed with schedule 2, it told us something else remarkable. The government told us that the cost of schedule 2 was not $80 million, as this House had been informed, but was a whopping $425 million. That's how much this unnecessary tax concession would have cost the budget if Labor had not stood in its way. So, again, Labor has demonstrated ourselves to be the party of prudent and responsible economic management. At a time when net debt has been doubled by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, it is Labor that is standing against the extension of fiscally reckless loopholes in our tax system. We support the amended bill. It was Labor's idea that the bill be amended in this way. And we simply thank our lucky stars that this tax loophole, originally $80 million and now costed at $425 million, has been avoided. Question agreed to. Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 4) Bill 2018 3

Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 4) Bill 2018

Consideration of Senate Message 3 12:07 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018 4

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018

Returned from Senate 4 COMMITTEES 4 COMMITTEES Law Enforcement Committee 4 Report 4 12:09 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement I present a corrigendum to the committee's report entitled Inquiry into the trade in elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn. DELEGATION REPORTS 4 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 10th Asia-Europe Parliamentary Partnership Meeting 4 12:09 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the 10th Asia-Europe Parliamentary Partnership Meeting, ASEP10, held in Brussels from 27 to 28 September 2018. COMMITTEES 4 COMMITTEES National Disability Insurance Scheme 4 Report 4 12:10 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the following reports: Provision of assistive technology under the National Disability Insurance Scheme and National Disability Insurance Scheme ICT systems. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e). Standing Committee on Environment and Energy 4 Report 4 12:10 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland On behalf of the Standing Committee on Environment and Energy, I present the committee's Report on the inquiry into the management and use of Commonwealth environmental water, together with minutes of the proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr CONROY 249127 by leave—I'm pleased to present the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Energy on our inquiry into the management and use of Commonwealth environmental water. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder controls a quantity of water in the Murray-Darling Basin. This water is for release from storage at times and locations where plants and animals need higher river flows or when wetlands need replenishment. Setting aside water for the environment is a relatively new concept and best practices are still evolving. This inquiry provided an opportunity for the committee to assess the water holder's work to date and progress being made. The committee commenced its inquiry in February 2018 and held public hearings and site inspections around the basin area between March and June, including visits to Albury, Shepparton, Mildura, Murray Bridge and Goolwa, and an observation flight over the Menindee Lakes. In general, participants in the inquiry praised the work of the water holder and the way environmental water was being managed. It was acknowledged that the benefits of environmental watering are only likely to become apparent over the long term. The committee has recommended that the water holder continues certain practices, including the good-neighbour policy of working respectfully and harmoniously with other water holders and landholders, working with Indigenous communities, funding complementary measures, water trading and continued investment in infrastructure programs to maximise water efficiency. The committee also recommended that the water holder could improve in some areas, including better communicating the outcomes of environmental water, strengthening mechanisms for consultation with the community, considering establishment of an advisory or consultative group to inform on environmental water use decisions, and utilising the best available technology to monitor water movements and assess environmental conditions. It also made a recommendation on working around the vexed issue of shepherding environmental water. It's fair to say that, in all our hearings, the issue of shepherding environmental water was the most controversial. If you look at the reports on recent events around the Menindee Lakes, it is an issue that is most up-front in people's minds around the management of the Murray-Darling Basin. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the inquiry. I thank the secretariat for their excellent work. I also want to acknowledge the strong work of the two chairs of the committee that we had during this process: the member for Mallee and the member for Calare. I thank both of them for their good work on this committee. I commend the report to the House. Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs 5 Report 5 12:13 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore On behalf of the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, I present the committee's Report on the impact of inauthentic art and craft in the style of First Nations peoples, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 by leave—On behalf of the standing committee, I rise today to make a statement with regard to this report. It was presented to the Speaker out of session on 19 December last year. I acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of this nation and the traditional custodians of country throughout Australia. I pay respect to ancestors and elders past, present and future and extend my thanks to all those who took part in the committee's inquiry. In addition, I have come to have a greater respect and understanding of guardianship of culture for our First Nations people. I especially love the work of the dozens of art centre products, some currently on my walls, but the brilliant printing expertise of the women of Nagula Jarndu, a women's art and resource centre, I am wearing today in their honour. You can buy the material and make your own clothing, as I have done. First Nations art and craft is not simply a collection of design elements in some artistic media presentation. Rather, it is integral to their cultural identity, stories and history of the First Nations peoples. So it has been alarming to learn that up to 80 per cent of souvenirs sold in Australia, seemingly representing our First Nations cultures, are fake. These imitation products have no connection to First Nations people or their culture and are often cheaply made imports. And although the First Nations fine-art market is not affected by authenticity issues to the same extent, the committee heard some troubling reports of unethical practices in this market as well. It is not surprising that First Nations artists and communities feel disrespected and cheated, while for consumers there is no reliable way of knowing if what they are buying is genuine. The misrepresentation of First Nations cultures is unacceptable, so the committee makes eight recommendations to significantly reduce the prevalence of imitation products and create opportunities for First Nations artists and their communities. The key recommendations include: increased funding for the Indigenous Art Code to foster responsible retail and supply practices increased resourcing for First Nations art centres for capacity-building activities analysis of the First Nations art and craft market to assess the lost revenue and opportunities linked to imitation products and identify potential economic opportunities for First Nations artists and their communities and starting a consultation process to develop standalone laws to protect Indigenous cultural intellectual property. There are individuals and businesses making outstanding contributions to safeguard Indigenous cultural expression. The committee is keen to support their efforts. The Indigenous Art Code does an impressive code of getting businesses to adopt its voluntary code of practice, to behave ethically and responsibly when selling First Nations art and craft, but limited resourcing affects its ability to achieve its full potential. We recommend increased resourcing for the Indigenous Art Code with a review after two years to see whether the voluntary code is affected or if a mandatory system should be considered. As well, First Nations art centres provide opportunities for artists and communities to foster and preserve their heritage. Unfortunately, centres struggle to keep qualified staff due to a lack of infrastructure, services and housing. Many would also benefit from greater access to business development expertise. So we recommend more support for capacity building through Indigenous business sector strategy funding. With many centres operating in remote areas, the committee learned about and was inspired by the art centre as businesses and community capacity builders. There are obvious social and economic benefits to growing them as self-supporting businesses. Additionally, we believe it is important to better understand the impacts of inauthentic products and, for this reason, recommend that the Productivity Commission conduct a comprehensive analysis of the First Nations art and craft market. This will play a vital role in implementing effective strategies to combat the sale of fake art. As to current legislation, consumer law allows the ACCC to take action where there is explicit evidence that consumers have been misled about inauthenticity—for example, by false labelling—but the absence of a consistent and recognisable labelling system for Indigenous art and craft products provides little protection for artists, communities or consumers. Therefore, we recommend IP Australia, in consultation with stakeholders, develop a certification trademark scheme for First Nations art and craft. Equally, copyright law is designed to protect an individual's artistic work over several decades, and it does this well, but these protections do not extend to the communal and enduring nature of First Nations traditional knowledge and cultural expression. For this reason, we recommend the development of standalone legislation to protect Indigenous cultural and intellectual properties rights. This could be facilitated through the establishment of a national Indigenous art and cultural authority, which is being explored by the Australia Council. First Nations people have been the custodians of their cultures for tens of thousands of years. It is an ethical and moral demand that we assist this guardianship into the future. It's my hope that the committee's report and its recommendations will help foster and preserve authentic First Nations cultural expression for the benefit of all Australians. In concluding, I'd like to acknowledge that this inquiry would not have been possible without the many contributions from First Nations artists and communities. For this we are extremely grateful. I also acknowledge contributions from industry peak bodies, Indigenous organisations, government agencies, academics and others. I thank the committee's deputy chair, Warren Snowdon, and other committee members for their commitment to this inquiry. I also acknowledge the complete dedication of the secretariat team including Mel Brocklehurst, Kilian Perrem, Louise Milligan, Joel Bateman and Ben Vea Vea and all of the other support staff from broadcasting, Hansard and IT. Without their efforts we would not have been so well able to capture the essence of the guardianship, the love of country and the significance of our Australian First Peoples' songlines. I commend this report to the House. 12:20 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari by leave—I thank our chair, Ann Sudmalis, for her speech and I support the words she expressed. I think she articulated in a very good way and a very appropriate way the outcomes of this inquiry and the importance of it. Living as I do in the Northern Territory, and in Central Australia, you are confronted by a whole lot of different sets of circumstances which go to the root of this inquiry. There are those issues which the chair expressed around people having their stories appropriated by others. There are those stories of carpetbaggers holding artists as prisoners effectively, paying them a pittance and getting them to produce works of art which are worth hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. This is a pitiful state of affairs. On the other hand, as the chair said, there are art centres which proliferate around this country, which are under-resourced by and large, but which with their minimal resources undertake great work in developing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art across the country, making sure that markets are accessed and available and providing an income stream for artists—a very important income stream—without which many people would be destitute. When we comprehend the sort of unique nature of the art of our First Nations peoples, we need to appreciate that it is not just a question of the art being a design; it's a question of understanding the uniqueness of that art and the stories which it represents. It's, in effect, an expression of culture. In Central Australia at least, and I know in many other parts of the country, you can't write, you can't paint and you can't describe someone else's story. It's owned by someone else. So to have it pinched, as happens from time to time, is a major cause of concern. We've had evidence during the course of this inquiry as we've crossed the nation, visiting remote parts of Western Australia and the Northern Territory, Queensland and South Australia. Every state and territory was visited, and we visited remote communities and remote outstations. We've given artists the opportunity to express their views about the importance of their art for themselves but most particularly for their families and their communities. I just want to refer to one part of the report very briefly, which is a statement regarding storytelling and Australia's early history, which is at page 7 of the report. I want to go to the statements from Wayne Barker of the Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Cultural Centre. He commented: Art, for our people, is not just a piece of art, in terms of a western concept of that—which is a product to sell, exchange, trade and barter, to decorate or to beautify. Art, for us, particularly our artistic design and our cultural design specific to language groups, specific to religious groups, if you want to use that word, is embedded in our traditional lore and custom. I will emphasise our lore and custom. Our lore and custom are a foundation of who we are as a sovereign people. Then there is a statement from the Buku-Larrnggay Mulka Centre, at Yirrkala, who say: Our connection to our country, our history and our knowledge informs our artistic practice. If we break it, we get into big trouble and are brought into account by our elders. I think those of us who have got any experience in this field understand what that means. Sadly, there are those in this country who have no respect for, or any understanding of, those views and are prepared to rip off Aboriginal art for their own profit without referring to the appropriateness of that rip-off or whether they should be compensating someone for the work they've misused. This is a real issue. If people in the parliament or those listening in visit any souvenir place across this country, they will see in many of them, particularly at airports, pieces of so-called craft—designed to represent a boomerang, for example—that may well have been produced in some foreign country, without any licensing from any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Australian, and sold back as authentic Aboriginal art, which of course it's not. That goes to the guts of this. We tried to establish the value of this art industry. Sadly, we couldn't get a figure, although one estimate was that it was worth close to $100 million. Contemplate that, because a significant proportion of that $100 million was going out the door to those people who were ripping Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people off. That is the sort of shameful behaviour we want addressed through this report. I note the committee's recommendations, which were summarised by my colleague, the chair. But I particularly want to say some words about recommendation 8, which provides an excellent opportunity for this government or any future government to undertake a significant reform of Australia's intellectual property law to encompass and serve to protect the art and cultural expression of the oldest continuing culture on the face of the earth, Australia's First Nations people. Recommendation 8 says: The committee recommends that the Australian Government begins a consultation process to develop stand-alone legislation protecting Indigenous Cultural Intellectual Property, including traditional knowledge and cultural expressions. The committee is mindful of the current Australia Council inquiry into the feasibility of a National Indigenous Art and Cultural Authority. The committee fully supports the establishment of this body and recommends that it be part of the consultation process. I want to emphasise that. I think that this recommendation is extremely important, but it also gives us an opportunity to perhaps go further. The consultation process recommended could, for example, take the form of a green paper process that examines IP law in Australia and offers up alternative means to address the appropriate and much-needed protection of Indigenous cultural intellectual property. It would inevitably be a complex challenge that would require further and extensive consultation; however, the need to protect First Nations art and cultural expression is urgent, and this work must commence as soon as possible. I know we get to debate many things in this parliament, and many documents are presented, Mr Speaker. But I say to you: this report gives us a unique opportunity for strong bipartisan support, across the parliament, for this report and its recommendations. I would say to the government: please respond to this report in a timely manner and, if at all possible, enact all its recommendations. If the recommendations have not been responded to by the time of an election—although I hope they are and I hope there are some initiatives taken—I commend any future government to look at the recommendations of the report and adopt them as we've recommended. I say that with the hope that a Labor government will be on that side of the chamber in the not-too-distant future, after the election, whenever it is held. I want to thank all of those involved in the deliberations: the many, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists around this country who made submissions, the art industry generally—except the rip-off merchants, the carpetbaggers and the spivs. We don't need to refer to them in any positive way because, frankly, they're not worth talking about, apart from disparaging their behaviour and making sure, if we possibly can, that they don't operate in our community. I want to again thank the chair, Mrs Sudmalis. I thank also Melanie Brocklehurst, Kilian Perrem, Louise Milligan, Joel Bateman and Ben Vea Vea for their unstinting support. I'm sure they found working with us a bit frustrating from time to time, but that's the way of the world—and I apologise if we caused any heartache. I thank the other members of the committee, and I want to acknowledge in particular Ms Sharon Claydon, the member for Newcastle; and Ms Madeline King, the member for Brand, for the unstinting and unwavering contributions they made in the course of this inquiry. They were consistently present and put themselves out to make sure they were available, and I know Llew O'Brien did. I want to thank all of the members of the committee—government and opposition members. Tim Hammond was with us for a little while and then, sadly, decided to pull the pin, which in every possible way wasn't a good thing, I didn't think. But in any event he did. He is no longer in the parliament, but we have a report and his name is on it, and I want to thank him for his contribution. He was, while a member of the committee, a very enthusiastic participant. I should also make reference to Bob Katter, who has had an unstinting view about the need to outlaw unauthentic Aboriginal art. We discussed whether or not it was possible to do that. Well, it is all but impossible, but we think there are ways of doing it, and the recommendations in this report address, I think, the way forward, and they are shared by all my committee colleagues. I might just make this observation as I conclude. I've been on and off the Committee on Indigenous Affairs for 30 years now. If we were in government, I wasn't on it because I was fortunate enough to have a ministerial position. But I've been on this committee for every other year while I've been in the parliament, and I want to thank all of those who, over those many years, have contributed, because it has always—always—operated in a bipartisan way. I stand to be corrected, but I don't think we've ever had a dissenting report. That, I think, says a lot about the way this parliament can operate from time to time. Whilst we see a lot of crap going on here every now and then, I just want to make sure that the people who are in the galleries and those who may be listening know that parliamentarians in this place, when they can, work effectively together and across the chamber. It's important that you understand that we're not all clowns and we actually work hard. I want to express my appreciation of the contributions made by the members of parliament who have served on this committee over the many years that I have been involved with it. Thank you. 12:32 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 8 12:33 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Economics Committee 8 Report 8 12:33 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein On behalf of the Standing Committee of Economics, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Review of the four major banks: fourth report, together with minutes of the proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr TIM WILSON IMW by leave—The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry has revealed shocking examples of behaviour by Australia's four major banks. The conduct has, in many cases, been contrary to the law. We have heard that the CBA sold junk credit insurance policies to 64,000 customers, charged fees to dead clients, charged double the rate of interest to thousands of its business customers and was the worst offender for charging customer fees for financial advice they never received. It was revealed that Westpac has been the most resistant of the four major banks to the supervision of the banking regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. ASIC told Westpac that its loan controls, which should ensure people can only borrow what they had the capacity to pay, were inadequate. Westpac ignored ASIC and continued to offer credit card limit increases to people without verifying their incomes. The issue affected more than one million customers. ANZ has also come under fire for weak loan controls, particularly in relation to loans submitted by brokers and through its car finance business. We heard that ANZ inappropriately sold loans to more than 300,000 customers and then repeatedly ignored ASIC's requests to compensate those people. Some of the most appalling cases of misconduct were revealed during the royal commission's scrutiny of NAB's Introducer Program. NAB bankers accepted loan bribes, forged customers' signatures and manipulated incentive programs to generate bonus payments. NAB has been slow to compensate their victims. In October 2018, the CEOs of Australia's four major banks appeared before the economics committee for the fourth round of inquiry hearings, which were scheduled shortly after the release of Commissioner Hayne's interim report. All committee members attended hearings at different points and contributed to the discussion from all parties. I'd like to thank the committee members who did present, including the deputy chair, who of course asked questions as well and worked cooperatively. Since the committee began its inquiry into the four major banks in October 2016, the government has undertaken major reforms to the banking and financial sector. These reforms include establishing a one-stop shop for external dispute resolution, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, and a Banking Executive Accountability Regime, which will impose higher standards of behaviour on senior executives. The government has also taken action to improve competition in the banking sector, including reducing barriers to entry for new financial institutions and establishing a comprehensive credit reporting system. Since the royal commission was announced, the banks have increased their focus on remediation and complaints handling, sacked staff and replaced executives. They have moved to break up elements of their vertically integrated business models, including selling off whole divisions that have been particular problem areas, such as wealth management. Each of the four major bank CEOs has made public apologies for the mistreatment of their customers and the policies and programs that caused financial hardship and distress. They have committed to do better, to provide remediation more quickly and to appropriately deal with complaints. However, these apologies will be meaningless, of course, unless they're backed up by lasting and real reform. The banking regulators have been criticised for being too timid. Australians expect the banks to fear their regulators. ASIC in particular needs to be tougher and has relied too much on enforceable undertakings rather than seeking penalties in the courts. This has led to the perception in the community that the banks have been let off scot-free despite the injustices and financial losses suffered by so many of their customers. The committee notes that there is a new chair and deputy chair of enforcement of ASIC who are committed to taking a stronger stance on enforcement, supported by a range of tougher penalties recently introduced by the government. I note that tougher penalties are also part of the royal commissioner's report On 4 February 2019, Commissioner Hayne released the royal commission's final report, charting a course for future reform of the banking and financial sector. The government has agreed to take action on all 76 recommendations and is going further in a number of important areas. The message for the big four banks should already be clear: the pursuit of profit at the expense of customers' best interests and basic community standards has been the root cause of widespread misconduct and systemic failings. As a consequence of their actions, the banks now face a considerable challenge in rebuilding trust and confidence. I commend the report to the House. 12:38 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith by leave—This is the fourth report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics into hearings with the bank CEOs, and the Labor members of this committee made two additional recommendations in our additional report. Firstly, we recommended a mechanism to give bank victims who had not been called before the royal commission the opportunity to tell their stories to that commission. We asked that those hearings take place in both city and regional areas. Unfortunately, of course, the commission has now passed, and the government didn't take up this recommendation. It's a great shame, because I and members of the Labor economic team spent months meeting with many of the bank victims, and many of their stories are absolutely harrowing, particularly those—they may have been running small businesses or may have been farmers—who had met all of their obligations under their loans when they took out loans with banks as mortgages. They never missed a payment but, because the banks decided to revalue assets associated with those loans and impair those loans, they found themselves in dire circumstances. We believed that these people should be given the opportunity to tell their story before the royal commission. It's unfortunate that the government didn't take up that recommendation. The second recommendation that we made is related to the banking accountability regime proposed by the government—the BEAR, as it is more widely known. We recommended increased accountability obligations for bank executives be extended to cover matters that affect consumer outcomes. It's pleasing to see the royal commission allude to this in recommendation 6.8, which states that the BEAR should be extended to APRA regulated financial service institutions. That's something Labor looks at positively in terms of the recommendations that were made by the royal commission. On the royal commission more broadly, it should never be forgotten that the Prime Minister and those opposite voted 26 times against a royal commission. This is the report that they did not want to see. These are the scandals, the rip-offs and the undermining of businesses in the Australian banking and financial system that they did not want to be exposed. Labor had been calling for two years for the government to hold a royal commission into banking and financial services because we had seen what had gone on in that industry and, as I mentioned earlier, we had sat down with some of the victims against whom these rip-offs have been perpetrated. It also should be noted that many of the activities, cases and instances that have been uncovered in the royal commission as breaches of law and illegal—and for which some are facing the prospect of prosecution—would never have been illegal if this government had had its way when it was originally elected. That is because many of the cases presented at the royal commission are breaches of the FOFA legislation. They're breaches of the duty of financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients. They're breaches about disclosure obligations, particularly when it comes to grandfathered commissions and people paying fees for services that they are not actually getting, let alone people who had passed away and were paying fees on accounts that obviously they were getting no more services for. Many of the situations would not be illegal if this government had had its way. Labor introduced the Future of Financial Advice reforms when we were last in government. Guess what the then opposition, led by the member for Warringah, did? They opposed the introduction of FOFA. They had an inquiry set up to oppose FOFA. Believe it or not, they relied on the advice of AMP. They said that in this instance the advice of AMP should be relied upon when they say that we shouldn't introduce FOFA regulations into Australia. Yes, that's right. They accepted the advice of AMP, who said that the world would end if Labor introduced FOFA regulations and if we introduced the best-interest duty for looking at what was going on in this industry. They actually suggested that there would be a loss of tens of thousands of jobs in Australia if Labor introduced its FOFA legislation. We now know why AMP weren't so keen on Labor's FOFA regulations when they were introduced—because it uncovered the acts and the rip-offs that were going on in this industry that we've seen in the royal commission. We should never forget that in the Australian banking and financial services sector this government never wanted the royal commissioner's recommendations to be uncovered. They never wanted to see these sorts of recommendations being made for consumers of financial products in this country. For that they should eternally stand condemned. This is the government that did not want to see new recommendations made about how we fix our banking and financial services industry. Some of these recommendations require urgent attention. They require detailed analysis and urgent attention of this parliament. We all know that there are only three sitting weeks left for the House of Representatives and only one for the Senate. Urgent attention is required from this parliament to look at issues like grandfathered commissions, where people are still being ripped off. That is why Labor is suggesting that we meet for an additional two weeks to get on with the business of looking at implementing the recommendations of the royal commissioner. This will be a test for the Morrison government. Do they agree that the rip-offs and scandals that have occurred in this industry are unacceptable, that the recommendations of the royal commission should be adopted immediately and that we should get on with the business of legislating for them, so that people can get the protection they deserve and we can restore trust and confidence to Australia's banking and financial services sector? Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources 11 Report 11 12:44 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor On behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, I present the committee's report on its inquiry into superannuation fund investments in agriculture, entitled Super-charging Australian Agriculture, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr RICK WILSON 198084 by leave—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, I rise to make a statement regarding the committee's report Super-charging Australian Agriculture: Inquiry into superannuation fund investment in agriculture. The report was presented to the Speaker out of session on 11 December 2018. The agricultural sector is an important part of the Australian economy, providing approximately $60 billion annually, and that's up from $47 billion five years ago. It also provides the livelihoods that sustain a majority of rural and regional Australia's population as well as food and products for all Australia. It's particularly important for those people who are on the agriculture committee whose communities, as we have said, very heavily rely on this industry. The investment attraction of Australian agriculture should be high. As a consistently performing and reliable investment option, it would seem sensible that the $2.6 trillion of funds held in trust by domestic superannuation funds would be wise to target a small percentage of that to agriculture. However, the proportion of farm and agribusiness assets held by superannuation funds is minuscule in comparison to the potential investment base. This inquiry investigated why this investment profile was so low. It examined the factors contributing to the reluctance of domestic superannuation funds to invest in the agricultural future of the country, especially as the peak body, Industry Super Australia, have commented extensively on the positive potential of such investments. The committee consulted with superannuation funds, agricultural peak bodies, individual business owners and investment managers. It became clear that a mix of data availability, tax, overseas regulation, perception of agriculture sector as an investment risk along with climate and environmental factors all contribute to low domestic superannuation investment. The simple nature of superannuation in Australia is that liquidity requirements and investment knowledge in agriculture contribute to a reluctance to invest in agriculture. Paired with the traditional structure of Australian agribusiness, where a majority of small owner-operators dominate, there is limited scope for reliable, long-term investment by superannuation, where assets must be disposed of quickly, with an acceptable rate of return. Overseas pension funds and other venture capital investors are increasing investment rates in Australian agriculture. But an uncertain policy environment, foreign investment rules, and land tax and stamp duty hamper this investment, even when conducted in tandem with domestic investors. Combined, all of these factors explain the low superannuation investment rate in agriculture rather than regulatory barriers, as was envisaged in the inquiry's terms of reference. In response to these identified factors, the committee has made four recommendations to government. The first recommendation relates to improving the data captured by the Australian government. This will be achieved by prioritising the work being done by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and ABARES through their Roadmap to improve the agricultural statistics system. The second recommendation involves revisiting foreign investment advertising requirements, managed trust tax rates and engaging with state and territory governments. This recommendation is intended to ameliorate any unintended consequences of stamp duty and land tax on investments from either overseas or domestic investors. The third recommendation is designed to counter the lack of understanding in investment circles regarding agriculture and its investment attraction. Through COAG cooperation, an information and promotional platform could aid domestic and overseas investors in identifying and understanding appropriate agricultural investments. Finally, recommendation 4 outlines a superannuation and agricultural industry investment working group where mutual benefits and improvements to best practice business can be identified to the benefit of all parties. The committee believes that these recommendations will help to commence an increased understanding of the investment appeal and benefits of agriculture, and lead to better outcomes for this crucial part of the Australian economy and supply chain. On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank all of those who contributed to this inquiry by providing submissions and attending in person to give evidence at hearings. I'd particularly like to recognise the committee secretariat for the tremendous work they have done to produce this report. My thanks on behalf of all the committee go to Joel Bateman, who acted as committee secretary for most of the report; the current committee secretary, Jeff Norris; Louise Milligan, senior researcher; Benjamin Vea Vea, researcher; and Danny Miletic, our office manager. Thank you to all of those people. I thank the deputy chair of the committee and all the committee members. They were very engaged in the report. We had almost full attendance at every hearing. I thank them very much. I commend this report to the House. 12:50 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson by leave—As the Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, I welcome this report into superannuation fund investment in agriculture in Australia. Firstly, I'd like to thank the chair, the member for O'Connor, Rick Wilson, and the rest of the committee, who, as the chair said, did work incredibly hard on this inquiry. Also, to Joel, Jeff and the secretariat: thank you for your attention to detail and persistence with what, when we first set out on this journey, we thought might be a difficult, dry and hard-to-get-to-the-bottom-of inquiry, and in some ways it was, but it also turned up some very interesting findings. I'd also thank all of those who made a submission to the inquiry and attended the public hearings. As the opening statement of this report says: Agricultural commodities provide approximately $60 billion annually to the Australian economy, making the sector a major economic contributor. Yet it does have the potential to be so much bigger. Australian agriculture is uniquely appealing due to the size of our nation; our proximity to the Asian economies, allowing exportation opportunities; and the variety of climatic zones that enable producers to offer a diverse range of commodities. The group chairman of Duxton Asset Management, Mr Ed Peter, explained to the committee during one of the hearings that the benefit of investing in agriculture over some other assets, like energy, metals and mining, is that agriculture is 'a gift that keeps on giving'. He stated: With both energy and metals and mining, once I dig it out, it's gone. Ag is a gift that keeps on giving. As long as I husband my land, I will get a return every year. Interestingly, both ASIC and APRA indicate that no specific regulatory or legislative barriers to agricultural investment exist within their remits. Yet, despite this, industry analysis suggests that Australian superannuation funds hold only a very small portion of farm assets in Australia. It was the duty of the committee to understand why. This inquiry analysed a number of perceived barriers preventing the potential of superannuation fund investment in agriculture in Australia. This analysis came to a few important conclusions. Firstly, the risk-return profile of agricultural investment, in any suitably large scale, is unacceptable to superannuation funds in Australia, especially as data and market understandings contribute to investment scepticism. Secondly, the impact on the agricultural sector from environmental influences poses too great a risk. While other sectors can alter the impact of a changing environment by perhaps changing practices or sources of materials, agriculture is generally bound to the land, water and climate of the region in which it's located. Thirdly, investors are concerned about the ethical factors that are tied to the agriculture industry, such as greenhouse gas emissions; deforestation and biodiversity loss; waste and water pollution; and animal welfare. Finally, the insufficient amount of reliable data about the Australian agricultural sector is problematic to the industry. As identified throughout this report, the cause of low superannuation investment in Australian agriculture is complex, and it's actually contested. No one single barrier, regulatory or otherwise, really is to blame. It seems to be a confluence of many different things. The recommendations put forward by the committee will be a first step towards addressing some of these important points. I'd like to finish by citing the conclusion from the report as it, effectively, represents the findings from the inquiry: The Committee does not believe that the issues identified and the recommendations outlined in this report will solve this issue overnight. It is a big issue. We do want to see more superannuation put into our agricultural sector. It's a big and complex question. However, there is room for incremental improvement in the data capture and the analysis. Unintended taxation impacts and sector understanding are two other really important components of it. The recommendations outlined in this report will, hopefully, lead to a change in both the superannuation and financial sector and the agricultural sector to bring about mutually beneficial relationships. That will be the key to this—that we do see enough investment in our Australian agricultural industry, as is so desperately required. Many Australians, I believe, want to see their superannuation go towards the agricultural sector, but we need to concentrate on the factors we learned in the inquiry to see that this happens. 12:56 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 13 12:56 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 13 BILLS Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018 13

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018

Second Reading 13 12:56 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks for the opportunity to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018 on behalf of my colleague in the other place who's done much of the work on shepherding this legislation through in the last few months. This legislation, which seeks to amend both the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act, does contain some primary reform. The function of the bill is contained in the first schedule. This schedule outlines a nomination checklist, similar to those used at the most recent by-elections, where a federal candidate can provide information related to their eligibility under section 44 of our Constitution. As members here would be very well aware, the issue of section 44 eligibility has plagued this parliament. In May last year, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, JSCEM, issued its report on these eligibility issues. The committee recommended the Australian government investigate measures and strategies to mitigate the impact of section 44 on this parliament, particularly when such confusion and chaos was taking hold. Importantly, the committee noted that the power of the parliament and the High Court in these matters should be respected. As members would recall, a checklist used to be voluntary, allowing candidates to provide information where they believed it was appropriate. Schedule 1 of this bill seeks to enforce that checklist as a compulsory requirement for every person nominating as a federal candidate. This compulsory requirement is not just important for administrative purposes but also ensures that the Australian public can have faith that, regardless of their choice of candidate, these issues have been squared away in some capacity by the time people get to the polls. Where answers are not provided to the required questions, the nomination would be invalid. Similarly, where more than one answer is provided to a required question, that nomination would also be invalid. The Australian Electoral Commission has been given the power, by schedule 1, to ensure that such deliberate contraventions of this process can result in that rejection of a nomination. Outside of this ability to reject a nomination, JSCEM, importantly, also noted that the Australian Electoral Commissioner should not be placed in the position of having final discretion on matters related to section 44. This is to ensure that no claims of bias can be levelled at a position that is deliberately and fervently independent. The most important feature of this checklist is to ensure that those who are deliberately seeking election with prior knowledge of ineligibility cannot avoid scrutiny. Completing this checklist does not automatically guarantee a candidate is eligible for federal office. The parliament and the judiciary rightly remain paramount in these cases for important constitutional reasons. But what this compulsory checklist does ensure is that all candidates for federal office consider their circumstances carefully and provide evidence wherever ambiguity exists. Providing deliberately false or misleading information will rightly attract a penalty under the Criminal Code, where either a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 12 months or a fine of $12,600, or both simultaneously, can apply. The Australian public are seeking certainty—certainty that the next parliament is not plagued with the same eligibility issues as the current one. When an Australian voter casts a ballot this year, they should feel certain that their elected representative is an eligible representative under our Constitution. Obviously it would be better if this bill was not necessary, but the parliament must act before the next federal election to ensure public faith in this institution is restored. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is a bipartisan committee that we trust to investigate these sorts of matters, and it has recommended this action. I want to thank and acknowledge all of the members of the committee—on our side, the members for Scullin and Oxley and Senator Ketter and Senator Brown—for the work that they've put into reaching this agreement on this part of the legislation. The opposition will be supporting this important first schedule in the bill we are debating here today. Schedules 2 and 3 of this bill are less significant. They deal with administrative changes to the AEC and alterations to the voting and scrutiny process. Although these schedules do have merit, we on this side, the Labor side, do not believe that the parliament should rush changes to our elections and electoral system without just cause. It's vital that when this parliament considers electoral law we do so with bipartisanship, consultation and consideration. It's imperative we do this not because the proposed law is overly complex or without merit but because it is a law that governs ourselves. We owe every member of this parliament the chance to scrutinise such rules and interrogate their practical application. For that reason, and thanks to bipartisan negotiation between the government and Senator Farrell, this bill will be amended in the Senate to reflect the extra work that has to go into the other schedules. The amendments foreshadowed in the other place will reduce this legislation to only those sections necessary to the operation of the next federal election. This bill will be reduced to the compulsory checklist for all candidates and the administrative changes to ensure the efficiency of the ballot count later this year. The sections that will remain in this bill include extending the six-metre exclusion zone to pre-poll stations, consistent with normal polling booths. This is a simple but commonsense change. Administrative changes that the opposition have deemed necessary to remain in this bill also include amendments to the forwarding and processing of declaration votes, the removal of the requirement to conduct the divisional returning officer Senate count, and streamlining the process for counting and packaging House of Representatives ballot papers. These measures will improve the efficiency of the Australian Electoral Commission and assist them with the process of counting the vote. Finally, Labor believes the sections allowing for the earlier commencement of preliminary scrutiny of declaration votes—removing the requirement to reduce postal vote applications for preliminary scrutiny and allowing for the earlier recheck of rejected declaration votes—should all remain, further assisting the commission without jeopardising the integrity of the count. Labor believes the remaining sections should be removed until such time as they can be considered and discussed properly. Labor will work with the Australian Electoral Commission to ensure that any constructive changes that are not achieved in this term of government are realised as soon as practicable in the next. It's vital that this parliament act on the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and provide the certainty demanded by the Australian public. Our democracy relies on public faith, and this is one step in restoring it. Can I say again, with the arrival of the member for Scullin, how much we appreciate the work done by all members of the JSCEM on both sides of parliament to reach this conclusion and this agreement on schedule 1 and other associated matters after the good work of Senator Farrell and other colleagues in both houses and on both sides. 13:05 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin It's always a pleasure to follow my friend the member for Rankin, particularly when it's on legislation such as this bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018, which goes beyond the individual issues that we debate in this place to the wider questions of how we safeguard the operation of and confidence in our democracy. The bill which is before us now, as the previous speaker, the shadow minister, made clear in his remarks, responds to the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, of which I've been the deputy chair for the life of this parliament. The provisions contained in the legislation before us go to two reports of that committee. Before turning to the terms of the legislation we are debating, I should acknowledge the work of all my colleagues on that committee and in particular both chairs—Senator Reynolds, who has moved on to another role within the government, and Senator McGrath; my Labor colleagues Senators Ketter and Brown and the member for Oxley, who brings great insight to his contributions to this committee as well as all of his other roles in this place, of course; and Senator Rhiannon—the former Senator Rhiannon, I should say—who made a tremendous contribution to the work of this committee and to it functioning, as it has to do, as a genuinely multipartisan safeguard of our shared interest in the functioning of Australia's representative democracy. I think this point is worth emphasising here, because when we deal with electoral legislation we are not dealing with the sorts of arguments that generally characterise our engagement in this place, where we bring to the parliament—to this chamber and to the other place—our concerns based on our values, our ideological viewpoints, as we test propositions that shape the lives of Australians. There must be, or there should be, real contest over those propositions if we are all to do our job. But we need to have a framework that is agreed through which we can play out these arguments. How we have regard to the most fundamental framework—other than the Constitution—of the operation of our representative democracy is a matter that requires particular care and attention on the part of all members and senators. These are, of course, critical foundations of Australia's democracy. It is disappointing in that regard that, as we debate this significant piece of legislation, the speakers list indicates that no government members will be making contributions to this debate. This is disappointing because this is an important government bill, and I'm somewhat at a loss as to why, other than the Special Minister of State, there has been no interest among government members in contributing to this debate, although that appears to be a factor that sadly—as you'd be well aware, Deputy Speaker—is not unique to this bill. It seems to be reflective of a broader pattern. Again I reiterate that these provisions are of critical importance to how our democracy operates and how Australians can have regard to that. The bill before us deals with three substantive matters. There is, most obviously, part of a response to the issues that relate to the disqualification of a significant number of members and senators by reason of the operation of section 44 of the Australian Constitution. Schedule 1 is the relevant component of the act that deals with this aspect. This was a matter that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters spent quite some time considering, in particular through an extensive report released last year entitled Excluded. I was pleased that this report ultimately demonstrated the very large measure of consensus across the parties represented on the joint standing committee and that it took a broad view of the impact of section 44 in terms of not just the narrow issue of the qualification or otherwise of individual members but also the implications of this provision, as interpreted by the court, on the wider functioning of and confidence in Australian democracy. These are matters that go beyond the scope of the provision we are debating now, but they need to be considered. While we support, as the member for Rankin made clear, the changes contained in schedule 1—which set out a checklist for candidates to complete in order to assess and make transparent their compliance or otherwise with the requirements of section 4 of the Constitution—this does not resolve all the issues. But we do support this checklist. This mirrors the checklist currently being used, which was used at the most recent series of by-elections that were conducted in the course of this parliament. In the course of those elections the non-compulsory nature of the checklist added to confusion, with some candidates choosing not to complete the checklist and—again, in my view—undermining confidence in elections where the issue of conformity with the Constitution, in terms of eligibility for office, was absolutely central. This would make this checklist, which I believe has been appropriately formed, compulsory for all candidates. This was a matter that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters considered carefully. This step is in line with the recommendations of the committee, and I'm very pleased to see this come before the party. As I said earlier, in its report the committee urged the parliament to consider wider strategies for responding to the impact of section 44 on the parliament. I think any of us who sits in this place and any Australian who cares about representative democracy and about our multicultural society is reflecting seriously on how we can maintain the capacity of all Australians to appropriately participate in seeking office in this, Australia's parliament, as well as the concern in the wider community that goes to a lack of trust formed from the sense of uncertainty and, indeed, chaos generated by a series of by-elections and changes in Senate representation. I am hopeful that this step—making this checklist compulsory—will attend to some of those issues and that it will enable prospective candidates to themselves think clearly, well in advance of actually nominating, about the issues they may face in seeking election to this place. I am also hopeful that it will show to the community, as clearly as we can—and there are obviously some limits to this—that candidates nominating are in all likelihood eligible to hold their office and to complete their term in office. I think that's an assurance we are all obliged to give to the wider Australian community and give now. I urge every candidate—because we are heading to an election in the near future—to consider their compliance and perhaps start considering it now, particularly those who are not seeking election through the parties presently represented in this place. Obviously for all of us here it is a key tool to consider, if we have not already done so—that our own eligibility issues are watertight and can be shown to the community to be so. We are supporting this legislation and this aspect of the legislation and call for further work to be done on the wider issues of ensuring trust and confidence. But this legislation does go beyond that. These are changes, I think we all agree, that are necessary for the conduct of and confidence in the upcoming federal election. With that in mind, I note that it is understood that there may well be the need for some discussions—in fact, the need has been recognised in the Senate—to ensure that the provisions necessary for the operation and conduct of an election on a multipartisan, transparent and fair basis will go ahead. And so, a series of matters which we believe go beyond those terms necessary will not be proceeded with. The shadow minister, the member for Rankin, went through those changes, and I won't reiterate them, but I want to reiterate a couple of points here. The purpose of this bill, and the purpose of these amendments, is clearly to restore trust and confidence in the operation of our democracy. The most fundamental expression of that is an election. As we move towards an election, we should, on a multipartisan basis, do those things that are necessary to make certain those ground rules are proceeded with in the terms that have been recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters which have been worked through with the Australian Electoral Commission. But those other matters which have been rushed, in our view, and deserve proper consideration should not be proceeded with. It's very clear that, should we have the opportunity to form government, we will continue with that work in consultation with the Australian Electoral Commission, the opposition and other parties to ensure that further changes are considered appropriately and debated robustly in this place, as should be the case. I know that the shadow special minister of state is appreciative of the opportunity he has had to work towards this bipartisan agreement on these important matters. So, in closing, I am looking forward to the amendment of the bill in the Senate, and its enactment as another small but significant step in restoring trust and confidence in our democracy. 13:17 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports The members for Scullin and Rankin have very ably explained why section 44(i) of the Constitution needed to be considered very carefully in this Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018—so that it restores the trust of the Australian people in candidates for parliament. They've also explained, as I'm sure the shadow minister for electoral matters has very capably dealt with in the Senate, the areas of the bill that we are going to agree on with the government. They include applying six-metre exclusion zones, forwarding and processing of declaration votes, removal of the requirement to conduct divisional returning officer Senate counts, allowing earlier commencement of preliminary scrutiny of declaration votes, removing the requirement to produce postal vote applications for preliminary scrutiny, allowing the early recheck of declaration votes and streamlining the process for counting and packaging House of Representatives ballot papers. These are all parts of the micromanagement of our electoral system that are very important. One of the reasons we do this is that constant revision of the electoral system for the maximum participation by Australian citizens in our compulsory attendance system is vital for ongoing democracy. We don't want to see in Australia, as we've seen in the United States, elections decided by hanging chads—that is, different electoral systems in different states. We don't want boundaries decided by state legislatures on the basis of political preferences or how it suits certain candidates from different political parties. We don't want to exclude people because of language or residential criteria, as happens in our great sister democracy, the United States. Our aim with all electoral legislation, including these micromanagement aims, is to include as many people as possible. I think one of the things that the opposition is most pleased about is the fundamental change that has taken place over the last few years, which is the increasing numbers of Australians who participate in a great electoral and democratic event like we're going to have in May. And that is because our Electoral Commission has abandoned the use of just snail mail to revise people's addresses. That process, where only 20 per cent of people were responding to snail mail change of addresses, was leading to a great drop-off in the number of people, particularly young people and people at rental addresses. A million people dropped off the electoral roll in the period from 2007 to 2013, and that was not in our democratic interest. I think we got down to 90 per cent of people being enrolled in the electoral process. Now, thanks to these changes by the Electoral Commission, supported by the opposition and the government, particularly pushed by us in the last period of the Rudd-Gillard government, there are now two million more people on the electoral roll. I believe that's democracy. If we have a compulsory attendance system, it's our responsibility to ensure that the rules are fair and, as the member for Scullin and the member for Rankin have pointed out, that candidates have a checklist that is acknowledged and fair so that the Australian people have confidence in who our candidates are. It's very, very important that we have the maximum number of people who are entitled to vote actually participating. Thanks to these fundamental changes that have taken place over the last few years in the way the Electoral Commission manages people's changes of addresses, I believe in the last few years two million more people are back on the electoral roll. That is a great democratic victory for the Australian people, and I think it will have some effect on the result that takes place in this forthcoming election. I commend the changes that the opposition have agree to with the government, and I look forward to the further changes that will be made in the Senate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I call the member for Lingiari. Mr Giles 243609 Hear, hear! 13:21 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. And thanks for the hear, hear—poor bugger. Mr Giles 243609 It's always a pleasure, mentor. Opposition members: Hear, hear! Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Well done! I wish I could orchestrate things more often! I thank the member for Melbourne Ports. I will make some comments about his contribution in a moment. The member for Rankin and the member for Scullin, this is very important legislation, and I want to pick up on some elements of it, but, most particularly, on the comments made by the member for Melbourne Ports when he referred to the changes that have been made to ensure people don't drop off enrolments and their enrolments are kept up. I have a particular concern about enrolment. Whilst this part of the bill doesn't directly address what I'm on about, it needs to be understood that, if we accept the propositions that, as a result of our Constitution and the acts that have been passed by this parliament, we have a participatory democracy and that we have compulsory voting, and therefore every Australian who is eligible to be on the roll should be on the roll and every Australian who is eligible to be on the roll and is on the roll should be entitled to have a vote and cast that vote without interference, then it makes it very difficult if you're not on the roll. Whilst voting is compulsory, if you're not on the roll, through no fault of your own, then you could hardly be seen as a participator participating in the democracy which was founded within the text of our Constitution or as a result of the parliament passing legislation since Federation. Yet we live in a set of circumstances where, as a direct result of funding cuts by this government and management decisions taken by the Australian Electoral Commission, there are literally tens of thousands of Australians in remote and regional Australia who are not on the roll. I've complained about this before. It's a fundamental abrogation of the responsibilities of government not to ensure that every Australian has the opportunity to be on the electoral roll and the opportunity to vote without interference. Sadly, this isn't the case for many in my own electorate of Lingiari, and I'll give you some of the details. I've previously expressed, in this place and elsewhere, concern that the Australian Electoral Commission's staffing of its Darwin office to administer the Northern Territory dropped from 16 to three under a restructure in 2017. That effectively means there are no teams going around the bush, visiting Aboriginal communities in my electorate, educating them about the enrolment and voting process and their obligations as citizens, and enrolling them to vote. It's as if by some magic osmosis from somewhere—I don't know what—young Aboriginal people in particular are expected to know how to be enrolled. They don't have access to a post office, even if there were one. They may or may not have access to the internet—on the proviso, of course, that they are literate. So there are many thousands who are simply not on the electoral roll. The federal government cuts to the AEC included $1.5 million in 2017-18 and $8.4 million over the forward estimates. The staff that were cut included five in the enrolment branch of the AEC in the Northern Territory and four in the Indigenous participation and voter education branch. They no longer exist. The Northern Territory Electoral Commission, because we have a dual role, effectively rents the use of the AEC voter list from the AEC, as required by the law on Northern Territory self-government. The Northern Territory doesn't have, as states do, an option of compiling its own list. So it too is victimised by the failure of the government to ensure that every person who should be on the roll and has the capacity to be on the roll is on the roll. It's clear that, by cutting and underfunding the AEC, the government is depriving large numbers of people of the vote. As of 30 September 2018, there were 69,825 persons enrolled to vote in Lingiari and 139,000 persons in both electorates in the Northern Territory. This means that last year, as the AEC pointed out, there were over 26,377 who were not on the roll. Eighty-four per cent of Territorians are enrolled to vote and 16 per cent are not. In other parts of Australia, the average is over 96 per cent. So, because they live where they do, because of the failure of this government to ensure that the Australian Electoral Commission has had sufficient funding and because of the Australian Electoral Commission's own stupid management decisions, these people are not on the roll. I'm entitled to get pretty bloody cranky about that, and I am. Yet there is not a whimper from the CLP in the Northern Territory or Senator Scullion in the other place, a cabinet member, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. You'd think he'd be an advocate and that this matter would have been rectified, yet it has not been. We've got an election coming within months—within weeks. It should be called today, but in any event it will be within weeks. Ms Landry 249764 Months. Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Within weeks. I didn't say how many weeks. It could be months. But, in any event, we know there's a challenge here. I've been calling on the government since late last year to address it. They've done absolutely nothing. I'm aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you want me to sit down and shut up very shortly, but I know that I'll have an opportunity to continue my remarks at some later point. Is now an appropriate time to stop? The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I think that's perfect timing, member for Lingiari. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 18 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS al-Araibi, Mr Hakeem 18 13:29 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Just over half an hour ago, Hakeem al-Araibi came home to Melbourne. I rise in this place to celebrate his return and to celebrate his courage. I also want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the courage of his wife, who I had the pleasure to meet and spend time with in these recent and difficult days. I stand in awe of her resolve. I wish them both the happiness of coming together and hope they get to enjoy a real honeymoon soon. That Hakeem al-Araibi is back is due to the work of many thousands of ordinary Australians. So many of us came together in a just cause. I'm pleased to stand in this place and acknowledge my friend the member for Wills; the Leader of the Opposition; the member for Gellibrand; the shadow minister for foreign affairs, Senator Wong; and the minister. I also acknowledge the work and leadership of the Prime Minister in this place. Many others came together in civil society. They were led by: Craig Foster, who has been irrepressible; the Football Federation and John Didiluca; the mighty Australian trade union movement, led by Sally McManus and Michele O'Neill; everyone at Amnesty International and at Human Rights Watch; Fatima Yazbek from the Gulf Institute, who has been such a support to Hakeem's wife; and so many in the media, especially Helen Davidson, James Massola and Sophie McNeill, who kept this story alive and kept the hearts and minds of Australians engaged. Taxation 18 13:31 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong The party opposite is continuing their practice of short-term gain and long-term pain—their gain and Australians' pain—whether it's the mining tax, which ultimately costs consumers more, border policies that weaken our border security, or negative gearing policies that would rip the bottom out of our delicate housing market. The latest of these ill-thought-through policies is the retiree tax, a grab for money that will boost their coffers at the expense of some of the most vulnerable in our community. Some 8,300 people in Bennelong will be punished if Labor introduces its retiree tax. On average, individuals affected would lose $2,200 a year. Those with self-managed super funds would lose around $12,000 a year. For many, their losses would be higher. Labor is changing the goalposts on those who have worked hard and saved and who have been responsible. According to the Australian Taxation Office, more than 900,000 Australians, 200,000 self-managed super funds and 2,000 super funds would be hit by Labor's retiree tax. Most people affected are on modest incomes. In opposition you have said and promised things just to get a vote. In government you are responsible for decisions made. Are you really worthy of government? al-Araibi, Mr Hakeem 18 13:32 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills A very brave young man is home today. It's a great news story, but it's something that has involved the entire community and this parliament as well. Hakeem al-Araibi has landed in Melbourne. After four months of detention in Thailand, he's home to his country, Australia—and we're so happy to have him here. He was detained because he was under extradition orders from Bahrain, a country he fled because he stood up for democracy and human rights and was tortured and paid the price for it. He is now back home in Australia where he should be. What happened was something very special. The entire community got together. He wasn't going to be forgotten by his teammates on the pitch; he wasn't going to be forgotten by this parliament and our leadership here; he wasn't going to be forgotten by the community that loves him so much. With the incredible leadership of Craig Foster, or 'Foz', who raised his public profile, a campaign to save Hakeem was born several months ago. We all joined it, and the world knew about it. I want to thank Labor leader Bill Shorten, Senator Penny Wong, the Prime Minister, and the foreign minister, Marise Payne, for working together to seek the release of Hakeem, because it wasn't inevitable that he'd come back. At any moment we could have lost this young man forever. Through the work of Craig, this parliament, our leadership and the local community, he is back home where he belongs. His family and the broader football family will welcome him back at the Pascoe Vale Football Club, which is in my electorate—and I can't wait for the first round! Menzies Electorate: Sport 18 13:34 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies Sport is an important aspect of the life of this country. It's important for individuals—it means healthy exercise: people keeping fit, being better off in terms of both their physical and their mental outlook—but it is also important for communities: joining sporting clubs, being part of sporting organisations. Even if it's only an informal organisation like the local running or walking group, that's important for those individuals concerned. With the increase in interest in sport and women's sport in particular in Australia, there is a greater demand for facilities for sporting clubs right around this nation. I have been pleased in my electorate of Menzies to be able to advocate on behalf of many organisations and clubs in the electorate for improvement in their sporting facilities. I was therefore delighted to be able to announce recently a $100,000 grant to the Schramms Sports Club in Doncaster, which will provide improved lighting not only for those who use the facilities for sporting activities, notably Australian Rules and cricket, but also for people who run around the oval and use the sporting facilities in an informal manner. I will continue to advocate for other projects in my electorate, but this is a good announcement, delivering for Menzies. Beagley, Archdeacon William 'Bill' Alan 19 13:35 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I rise today to recognise and celebrate the life of the venerable William 'Bill' Beagley. Bill contained multitudes. He was so full of life and he made the lives of those around him fuller. He was an iconoclast: a motorcycle-riding, rock-music-playing priest with long flowing hair and a great beard. He was a friend and a valued ethical guide to me, someone I was always happy to see and proud to know. I was far from the only person to feel this way. The service and celebration of his life at Holy Trinity Anglican Church in Williamstown was standing room only and was filled with people from every walk of life. Bill's spiritual leadership as the archdeacon at Holy Trinity transcended the church walls and encompassed social welfare and interfaith work across Melbourne's west. He was active in our community, from our sporting clubs to his chaplaincy at Port Phillip Prison. I'm sad that I didn't get to watch the Western Bulldogs beat his beloved Geelong Cats with him in their first AFLW game in Melbourne's west on the weekend. My thoughts are with Bill's family, particularly his wife, Leanne Beagley, during this very difficult time. The eulogies delivered at Bill's commemoration by his daughters, Rachel Mullen-Beagley, Sarah Beagley and Tess Beagley were extraordinary and, in themselves, a measure of a life that any man would be incredibly proud of. I hope that the family's faith is a consolation at this difficult time. My thoughts, the thoughts of Melbourne's west and the thoughts of the Australian Labor Party are with the Beagley family. Mitiamo Pipeline 19 13:37 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee The Mitiamo pipeline had a business case commissioned by the federal government and had a commitment by the state Labor government of $10 million, yet we have failed to deliver it. We need to give some money towards this project. Having been a farmer myself, I know that there is nothing more soul-destroying in a drought than having to cart water and feed. If we can build a pipeline that delivers water to a property permanently then we should get on with it. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to hurry up and deliver this project. The state Labor government has delivered $10 million. We want $10-12 million from the federal government. It is not very much money. This will connect 87 rural houses and 180 customers. It's 375 kilometres of pipeline. There is nothing better than building infrastructure, particularly to say to drought-affected communities: we believe in you and believe that you have a future. There is an added advantage, because, when you build pipeline infrastructure, the farmers then put tanks and troughs on their own properties, which stimulates the country towns and the little businesses that sell those things. We have procrastinated about this long enough. This is a drought-affected community. It should be built. I call on the Deputy Prime Minister to deliver this and get on with it. Lalor Electorate: Medicare 19 13:39 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor On 31 July 2018, this side of the parliament, the Labor Party, committed to a fully Medicare rebated MRI licence for my local public hospital, the Werribee Mercy Hospital. Imagine my shock when, after over six months of asking this government to make the same commitment, I open the papers on the weekend to see they have not made the commitment to my electorate but have put a third licence into Geelong, in the seat of Corangamite, which already has two licences. Now the Epworth private hospital has a licence commitment from those opposite, while a quarter of a million people in the electorate of Lalor, in the City of Wyndham, have to travel at least 30 minutes to access an MRI with a Medicare rebate. This is outrageous. I call on those opposite—the Minister for Health, the member for Flinders—to please have a good look at themselves and have a good look at the need. You on that side need to use some evidence based decision-making. Stop giving licences to private hospitals that aren't warranted when there's desperate need in communities and when public hospitals exist. We're asking you to be fair. I'm asking the member for Corangamite to give us her licence. Let's see how that goes down. Queensland: Floods 19 13:40 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson Most of last week I was helping constituents in Townsville and Giru in the wake of flooding that caused widespread devastation. In times of great adversity we see the real spirit and character of the community shine through. That community looks for a similar spirit and strength of character to come from the institutions they rely on at these times. The majority of banks have stepped up to the plate, putting forward support packages for victims in Townsville and pledging support for cattle farmers in the west. Insurance companies on the other hand look like digging in for protracted contesting of claims and stringing out payments, as we saw after Cyclone Debbie two years ago. Tricky wording in the fine print—distinguishing between floodwater and stormwater—could see hundreds of claims rejected. The Insurance Council of Australia is planning two insurance forums to provide claim guidance, but the first forum is two weeks away and the second is not until the 25th of next month. People need to get their claims sorted now so that they can rebuild their lives as soon as possible. It should not take more than 18 months to finalise claims, like it did for the people in the Whitsundays after Cyclone Debbie. Given Townsville has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and a depressed housing construction market, we expect to see local tradies, local businesses and local workers given priority for reconstruction work. The Insurance Council has already indicated that this may not be the case, but I'm going to be keeping an eye on them and doing what I can to ensure that all of these issues are addressed in the weeks and months ahead, and they need to know it. Climate Change 20 13:41 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison Tasmania is burning and North Queensland is dealing with devastating floods. Properties have been destroyed, family livelihoods have been trashed and our natural environment, including World Heritage areas, has been irrevocably devastated and yet we still have a federal government doing nothing to combat climate change. Indeed, Australia has gone from a world leader in tackling climate change to being a laggard. No wonder, with the Liberal and National parties dismantling anything that even looks like it would deal with climate change. The carbon price has been dumped. The clean energy target was kicked around and then stopped in its tracks. The National Energy Guarantee was dropped. The Renewable Energy Target has been dismantled. It's a disgrace that Australia has no climate change policy, especially when climate change is the No. 1 threat to life as we know it—though you wouldn't know it from the way that this government behaves. To all the naysayers who say, 'It's too hard,' or, 'It doesn't matter what Australia does,' I say, 'That's nonsense.' Of course we need to achieve zero net carbon emissions and put Australia on a pathway to 100 per cent reliance on renewable energy. We need to act now otherwise severe weather events, like we're seeing in Tasmania and Queensland, are only going to become more frequent and more extreme. To ignore this is grossly irresponsible. Black Saturday Bushfires: 10th Anniversary 20 13:43 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan We remember Black Saturday—the blood of the victims, the ash of the forest and the sweat of those facing the foe. When drowned in our tears new life did spring forth. Until the new dawn, when the sun would rise over the southern hills of the Great Dividing Range to a clear smokeless sky, there was work to do. We did care for men, women and little children. We did suppress the fires, and communities were rebuilt. Most of all we had a lot of grieving to do, and we did. We grieved arm in arm, hand in hand and teardrop by blood-filled teardrop. Ten years on we remember broken families, deeply wounded and still grieving daily for those lost. They are haunted by the devastation and were defenceless to its ferocity. The hopes, dreams and futures of thousands of Victorians were reduced to smouldering ash in an hour and washed away forever by the autumn rain. Not one of us in this place dares walk in the shoes of those who grieve this day, nor tries to understand. Only fellow travellers can chance that. Please accept this meagre offering. Though we do not know your name, we do know you are there and we want you to know that we care. When I wrote this piece Ivan Smith was the incident controller at the Grantville fire. He was there on Ash Wednesday and Black Saturday. God bless Ivan—and Gwen for supporting him. Queensland: Floods 20 13:44 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert Townsville has experienced the worst floods in our recorded history. The Ross River Dam rose to 244 per cent. Townsville received a year's rainfall in nine days: 1,134 millimetres were recorded up to 9 am on Monday, 4 February, reaching over 1.65 metres. More than 22,000 homes were destroyed. People's belongings were destroyed. The flooding was disastrous, but the worst is not yet over, as we lead into the dangerous clean-up time. Every home flooded or not is trying to cope with extreme mould. So far we have eight people in the intensive care unit at Townsville Hospital being treated for melioidosis, an environmental bacteria that lives in the soil. This disease can be deadly. We are furiously cleaning up our city, because Townsville is the city where we get in, get our hands dirty and get on with what needs to be done. But we must also take time to listen to and act upon the advice of the health authorities. To those participating in the clean-up: I want to acknowledge you and recognise the amazing work that you are doing, but it is also important that you stay safe. Please wear protective gear, including airway protection, and, importantly, please stay hydrated during the intense and humid weather. To the people of Townsville, Palm Island and Magnetic Island: please stay safe. My sincere thanks go to all of the hardworking volunteers. This disaster has brought out the very best in our community. We are a resilient mob and we will get through this, hopefully safely. Dunkley Electorate: Ballarto Road 21 13:46 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley Since the whole of Carrum Downs, Skye and Sandhurst came into my electorate last August, local residents, parents and the Skye CFA have told me how hard it is to get in and out of their school and residential streets due to congestion along Ballarto Road. So I have been in the Prime Minister's ear about getting this fixed, as well as at the CFA to talk to them about what this means to them. Last week, the Prime Minister came to Ballarto Road to commit to the funding we need to fix the congested and unsafe intersections all along Ballarto Road. This investment delivers $30 million of budgeted federal funding to fix dangerous and congested intersections all along Ballarto Road, including Greenwood Drive, Dion Drive, Potts Road, school intersections and more. This will mean quicker fire response times, less time in traffic and less time getting to and from work or dropping kids off at school. It also means getting you home sooner and safer, and more quality time at home with your family and friends. It's only because of a strong economy that we've been able to invest in fixing Ballarto Road for Carrum Downs, Sandhurst and Skye, and I'm proud to have responded to the needs of local residents. As the federal Liberal member for Dunkley, I want to keep hearing from you, so, if these local road upgrades to Ballarto Road are something that will make a real difference to you and your family, please comment below and please also let me know about other roads that you think need fixing in our local area. Canberra Electorate: Drones 21 13:48 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Last Friday heralded the end of the drone delivery trial in Bonython and the community is rejoicing. From Irena: The drones stopped flying last weekend and I can tell you the peace and quiet we have had in the past week has been sublime. We (and our pets) have been seriously traumatised by living with and fighting the drone trial. We are so relieved that they are gone. Our thoughts are now with the residents of Gungahlin. The drones should not be allowed to fly over there until a government body is made responsible for the noise, and the issues about privacy are addressed. Irena, I am with you. The Bonython trial has thrown up lots of questions. That's why I've been calling for and I continue to call for the minister to conduct an independent review before the Gungahlin pilot—an independent review led by CASA and the Privacy Commission and involving the relevant federal and territory government agencies; an independent review that is publicly released and looks at the regulatory framework, particularly for commercial operators; an independent review that looks at the privacy issues, particularly regarding where the data is being stored, what data is actually being captured, what happens to the data and at which location it is being stored; an independent review that looks at the economic benefits to the ACT, particularly for local small businesses. If we're going to have a place where we have fast food delivered by drones, as a nation we need to have a conversation about this, and that starts with an independent review. (Time expired) Cairns: Fishing Industry 21 13:49 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt Last week over 4,000 coral trout fingerlings made their way to Taiwan from Cairns in my electorate of Leichhardt in a trial shipment, a pilot shipment—a first in our region. It is fantastic to see firsthand how Company One Pty Ltd has diversified and set up a world-class facility to accommodate a billion-dollar industry. This almost didn't happen. At the end of 2016, I received a phone call from the then Finfish Enterprise Pty Ltd advising the Labor state government were literally going to turn off their power that afternoon and, as a result, millions of fish would be euthanised. It was only through my intervention that they were able to keep the lights on and their employees in a job. Then Company One was formed and, with it, an exciting development for the Cairns fish-breeding facility. The fingerlings are shipped in styrofoam boxes inside plastic bags filled with oxygen-rich water to last the 18-hour trip. Company One have invested a lot of time, money and energy into a special boxing technique for the species, to minimise as much stress as possible for the fish. They are capable of breeding over 10 million giant groper and coral trout fingerlings every year. Company One will continue to invest heavily and are now looking at breeding other select species. Congratulations to Richard, Ryan, Angelique and the team on your commitment to keeping this industry alive and growing in our region. (Time expired) Kingston Electorate: Adelaide Coastal Trail 22 13:51 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston The petitions I have before me represent the over 1,000 local residents who have joined my fight to complete the coastal trail at Witton Bluff in my electorate. Witton Bluff, between Christies Beach and Port Noarlunga, remains one of the final sections of the Adelaide coastal trail to be completed. At the last federal election it was federal Labor who said, 'We will fund this coastal trail.' Of course, the Liberal Party has not matched that funding. At the state election campaign, state Labor said, 'We will fund this project.' Of course, the state Liberals won and will not fund this project. This is a disgrace. This is such an important project to my local electorate, both for local residents and for tourism. It will, importantly, connect the Christies Beach and Port Noarlunga townships. As one respondent said, 'It is a simple project and will bring tourism and investment to both Christies Beach and Port Noarlunga.' Another commented on how the trail will greatly benefit traders on Beach Road and in Port Noarlunga. Another said: 'We have lived interstate and we've seen what can be done connecting coastline and walking trails. It is for the benefit of the whole community and certainly an asset to tourism.' State and federal Liberals need to listen to the residents in my electorate and fund this project. I will be lobbying the Labor Party to make sure we get funding for this project. It is important for our community. (Time expired) Brisbane Electorate: Infrastructure 22 13:52 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane Brisbane and South-East Queensland are getting the infrastructure funding they need on the back of this government's strong economic management, which is necessary to build it. This morning our government announced its strong support for a South-East Queensland city deal, which will aim to lock in the infrastructure projects needed in our fast-growing area for the decades ahead. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister was in Brisbane and announced an additional almost quarter of a billion dollars towards local congestion-busting road and rail projects. This included funding for a very important local project in the heart of Brisbane, an upgrade to the intersection of Doggett Street and Commercial Road in Newstead. It's one of the worst intersections in Brisbane. It's increasingly busy, with all the nearby development and new apartments around Newstead, and it's increasingly dangerous for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians. So this is great news for local residents in Newstead. Locally, we've also seen the widening of the Inner City Bypass and the upgrade of the Gateway, both recently completed. We're seeing the upgrade of Kingsford Smith Drive. Brisbane Airport is getting its second runway. And this government is funding massive investments and works in the Bruce Highway heading north of the city and the M1 heading south. Of the $75 billion our government is investing in infrastructure and transport projects nationwide, I'm incredibly proud to be part of a team in Queensland that has $15½ billion going towards the projects needed in our wonderful state. Shipping 22 13:54 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Today in the gallery are Paul Mueleman, 36, of Redcliffe, and Daniel Bell, now the father of a 14-month-old child. They were workers on the MV Mariloula and the MV Lowlands Brilliance. They worked for BHP. BHP has made a decision to abandon the Australian flag, to abandon Australian seafarers in Australian jobs and to replace it with foreign-flagged vessels with foreign workers being paid foreign wages. The Big Australian, as it is called, has been exposed to actually have a little heart and no soul when it comes to looking after the national interest. It's in Australia's national interest to have the Australian flag on the back of ships with Australian seafarers. It's in the interests of our national security, but we've heard nothing from those opposite about this. It is in the interests of our environment and it is in the interests of our economy. The fact is that a Labor government will end the coalition's war on Australian shipping, with its legislation trying to introduce 'WorkChoices on water'. We need an Australian shipping industry. It is vital for our natural interests, but it is also vital for people like the 70 Australian seafarers who lost their jobs due to this callous and outrageous decision. Taxation 22 13:56 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Today I stand for the 20,000 families of the Northern Beaches of Sydney who will be impacted adversely by Labor's retrospective retiree tax. This is a tax that hurts people on low incomes, a tax that hurts people who seek the freedom to retire without fear of poverty and a tax that punishes people who have done nothing wrong, who have paid their taxes all their lives and who have saved for a proper retirement. It is a tax that will change the economic structure of Australia, a structure that has seen our economy grow for 28 years in a row. It will make our companies more indebted. It will cost the budget billions of dollars, putting a hole in Labor's policies and their false promises of extra funding. Who stands to gain from this? It's not the low-income retirees. It's not the people of Australia. It's not the people whose services they are promising to fund, because that money won't be there; it's the large donors of the Labor Party. The industry superannuation funds stand to gain $160 million a year in extra fees from punters who will have no choice. Labor says they stand up for people who want freedom. They say they stand up for the low-income person but what this policy shows is that they only stand up for themselves. Employment 23 13:57 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I want to acknowledge in the public gallery today Australian seafarers including Jimmy Scott and Danny Bell, both of whom were sacked on the high seas with the complicit approval of this Prime Minister and this government. I say complicit, because the government had to issue temporary licences to foreign ships that will continue to undertake this work. They literally undermined the job security of these workers and, indeed, in doing so they undermined the national security as well. This Prime Minister likes to invoke national security on any given matter, but when it comes to the maritime industry or seafarers he completely forgets it matters. In fact, it's quite remarkable that this Prime Minister will be happy to see an Australian worker sacked and allow a foreign crew to be paid, in some cases, less than $2 an hour in order to undermine our seafarers and our Australian shipping industry. That is unacceptable to Labor. Labor will ensure that Australians get to actually work on ships that are in our waters. We will ensure that Australian seafarers are protected and are given and afforded proper employment conditions. It is not just national security that this government wants to undermine; it is employment security and job security, which he doesn't care about. All he cares about is looking after his big mates and undermining workers in this country. Veterans 23 13:59 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My electorate is home to many wonderful veteran support organisations and volunteers. I work closely with them to help support their work assisting our former service men and women and their families. I was delighted to recently host the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the secretary of the department for a veterans' services roundtable. Special thanks to the hosts of the event, president Trevor Chapman and the Marion RSL. Thanks also to those who attended. From our RSLs we had Win Einthal from Blackwood; Trevor Whitelaw and Jim Nicholson from Brighton; Ken Parnell and Jason Davies from Marion; Keith Harrison from Plympton Glenelg; Bill Hignett and Tich Tyson from the Plympton Veterans Centre; Roy Hasda from Colonel Light Gardens; Dr Robert Black from the RAAF Association Mitcham Branch; Nathan Klinge from RSL Care; Rod Murray, RSL regional coordinator; Mal Thiele and Bill Denny from the Vietnam Veterans' Federation and Barry Heffernan from the William Kibby men's shed. We greatly appreciated their suggestions and advice as we greatly appreciate the support and assistance these groups provide to their members, ex-service men and women and their families. I was also delighted to join the minister to announce the government will provide $157,000 in federal funding for Flinders University, in partnership with the William Kibby VC Men's Shed, to develop a program to support younger veterans into tertiary education. I look forward to continuing to work closely with all of these fantastic organisations and, on behalf of everyone in our community, I thank them most sincerely for everything they do. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 23 CONDOLENCES Neville, Mr Paul Christopher, Cooney, Senator Bernard Cornelius 'Barney' 23 Reference to Federation Chamber 24 14:02 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That statements on indulgence on the deaths of Paul Christopher Neville and Bernard 'Barney' Cornelius Cooney be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. Scholes, Hon. Gordon Glen Denton, AO 24 Reference to Federation Chamber 25 14:09 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Hon. Gordon Glen Denton Scholes be referred to the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 25 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Black Saturday Bushfires: 10th Anniversary 25 Reference to Federation Chamber 27 14:24 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That further statements in relation to the ten year anniversary of the Victorian bushfires be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. Australian Natural Disasters 27 14:25 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I rise on indulgence to update the House on the many floods and fires that have ravaged parts of our country in recent weeks and months. As we know, across our nation we are seeing incredible efforts from tens of thousands of Australians in response to the national disasters that we have faced. In north-west Queensland, flooding rains have brought devastating stock losses to lands and communities that were scarred by years of drought. The heartbreak that is occurring in those communities is hard for us to imagine in this place. As a result of a monsoon low, Townsville's Ross River hit a record peak, with flood waters damaging thousands of homes and buildings. More than 7,700 damage assessments have been completed across the state. We know that two men lost their lives and another man is missing near Ayr, and our prayers and support are with their families. There is also a livestock tragedy in North Queensland currently unfolding, with stock losses at inestimable levels. Right now, a whole-of-government response is underway, with Emergency Management Australia, the Defence Force, the Australian Taxation Office, Department of Health, the Department of Human Services and the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources all working with state and local authorities to direct the recovery and the response. The Defence Force has established a joint task force, which is working closely with local authorities and emergency services to help remote communities. They're helping farmers sustain livestock cut off by flooding and transporting patients and critical supplies. They are also involved in the removal, wherever possible, of the carcasses of thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, of stock losses. The ADF has liaison officers in Cloncurry, Julia Creek and Richmond to drop fodder to local communities, working closely at the direction of the local communities. The RAAF and the Army's 3rd Brigade, 17th Brigade, 6th Brigade and 1st Division—around 2,800 ADF personnel, all based in Townsville, many of them with flooded homes and properties themselves—have helped evacuate people and transport sandbags from Brisbane. The Commonwealth government, working closely with the Queensland and local governments, has already contributed over $100 million in financial assistance to the recovery effort. That means payments to people whose property has been damaged to assist with their emergency needs; support for affected primary producers, raising recovery grants from $25,000 to $75,000, consistent with category D status; recovery grants for small businesses to help them clean up and reopen their doors; payments of $1 million each, as I announced yesterday, to the current eight council areas west of Townsville to help them with a broad range of recovery activities; and funding for the restoration of damaged infrastructure such as roads and bridges. As of two days ago, we've extended the availability of disaster recovery payments to eight flood-hit shires across western Queensland. We all know it is difficult to get things done when roads and communications are cut, and that's why I'm pleased at the speed of the response on the ground to date, but it must be maintained. Over 33,000 claims for disaster payments have been processed in Townsville alone, already providing over $39 million directly into the pockets of those affected, and I particularly want to commend Home Affairs and the Department of Human Services for their swift action in getting that support to people as quickly as they can. As well, the government has extended a further $3 million to boost mental health services on the ground, complementing the support being provided by the Queensland government. My great concern is for those farming communities who are absorbing the horrible impact of this. They need our mental health support, and those services have been funded and provided and extended. As we've seen before, while one part of the country is under water, another part is in flames. We've had fires in Western Australia and, as we gather, 28 bushfires are still burning across Tasmania. These fires have burnt more than 205,000 hectares, including almost 90,000 hectares in the World Heritage area. Firefighters have come from around Australia and across the ditch in New Zealand to help. Miraculously, no lives have been lost there. We've activated disaster recovery funding arrangements in the Derwent Valley, the Huon Valley, the West Coast and the Central Highlands to help cover the costs of firefighting and evacuation centres, as well as recovery payments for affected people and freight subsidies for farmers and producers. We have also activated the Australian government Disaster Recovery Allowance, providing assistance to employees, primary producers and sole traders who have experienced a loss of income as a direct result of the bushfires. There are also fires burning in Victoria, with three uncontrolled blazes at Walhalla, Thomson and Timbarra River. Again, there has been some damage and loss of properties, but thankfully no lives have been lost. Every summer, as waters rise and fires rage, nature seems to hurl challenges and pose questions of readiness, courage and compassion that Australians answer in the affirmative every time, showing the strength and determination for which Australians are known. Once again, we have seen that response. Our message to all affected, whether in the black-soil mud of western Queensland or the water-sodden houses of Townsville or the ravaged fire areas of Tasmania, is: as we've stood with you in this immediate response, we will stand with you in the recovery and we will stand with you in the rebuilding. Just as was said in the condolence motion relating to the 10th anniversary of the Black Saturday fires, this will be a decade worth of work, and perhaps more. I've engaged with local mayors throughout western Queensland and in Townsville itself. I want to thank all of those mayors. I must say that local government, state government and the Commonwealth government, from whichever political persuasion, have worked together hand-in-glove—no fingers pointing anywhere; just hands out to help each other. I want to thank in particular Premier Hodgman and Premier Palaszczuk, who have been open and direct and have been tremendous in their support, and we have responded in kind. There is much work to do and there is much rebuilding to do, and this place and our government will certainly support all of that. 14:32 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the Prime Minister for his words. We live in a beautiful country, but it can be very brutal. This summer has brought fires to Victoria, Western Australia and most severely to Tasmania, and devastating floods to North Queensland and Townsville, surging through western Queensland. When I was at the disaster relief centre in Townsville, I asked them to explain to me the volume of water which came through the Ross River Dam in those three days. It was said that, in three days, it was the equivalent of all of Sydney Harbour rushing through. Thousands and thousands of homes are affected. The member for Herbert's home was among them; her mother's home was flooded. But, like so many other residents, Cathy hasn't been focusing on herself. She's been everywhere, helping with sandbags and helping coordinate the volunteers. I want to thank and commend everyone involved in the recovery effort, including the emergency services personnel and the council workers, led by the resolute mayor, Jenny Hill, and her leadership team, who turned out to help even though, in many cases, their own homes were underwater or damaged. I acknowledge the work of Premier Palaszczuk. Of course, we should acknowledge the members of the Australian Defence Force. Townsville is a garrison town. The locals see the ADF out and about more than most Australians. Their calm and professional presence and performance amidst the swift rising waters, in the pitch-black night and with sightings of crocodiles, was such a comfort and reassurance to those in trouble. That should be a source of pride to all of us. But perhaps what moved me most about Townsville was the image of a highway turned into a boat ramp. There, at the edge of the floodwaters, cars with boat trailers navigated to put the tinnies and the boats into the water—no easy feat. Literally tens and tens of boats were there from locals, just to help their fellow Townsvilleans get out of trouble. I can tell Australians that the resilience and cheerfulness of the Queenslanders I had the privilege to speak to, whether they were cleaning up the local RSL or comforting friends in trouble, represent the very best of our country. After these monsoonal rains, 800 properties from the outskirts of Townsville to Hughenden, Cloncurry, Julia Creek and Richmond and all the way to Winton are now in flood. After years of unforgiving drought, the stock is now drowning or dying in bogs or from pneumonia. This devastation is overwhelming. In the member for Kennedy's electorate, I know that many farmers have lost everything, and I know that he shares their pain and sadness. I saw on Channel 9 Jaye Hall from Julia Creek in his electorate simply say, 'This is the worst tragedy I've ever had.' But she went on to share the story of a note that she received from her two children, Madison and Wyatt. They wrote: Dear Mum We are sorry about all of these cattle. If there is anything we can do to help you, let us know. Hope you start to feel better soon. If we need more money you could take mine out of my bank and put it in yours. … We love you very much! Think of those words from those two children: 'If there is anything we can do to help you, let us know.' I congratulate Madison and Wyatt on summing up the mood of the nation, because that's what we want to say to all Queenslanders affected as a parliament and as a nation, 'If there is anything we can do to help, let us know.' I want insurance companies to hear that message loud and clear. After the floods, 13,560 claims have already been registered, and Australia is watching. Whether it's insurance, government payments or relief from bank loans, Queenslanders should just get the help they need, the compensation that they've paid for, as soon as possible, with no excuses, no delays and no hiding behind the lawyers—just the right thing done quickly. In terms of Australians visiting Townsville, give it a few weeks and then invest in the tourism of Townsville and the surrounding areas. That's a great way to help. Of course, as we sit here, 486 remarkable people are fighting fires in Tasmania on the ground and in the air. A hundred and seventy-five people have come from interstate or New Zealand to help a friend in need. The scale of the task they confront is immense: 1,800 kilometres of fire edge, 205,000 hectares burning or burned out, homes and outbuildings levelled, and one of the great world wildernesses, a beautiful, distinctive part of our nation, reduced to ash in part. The economic consequences have also been grave. The fire at Zeehan has closed the road, and tourists have cancelled their bookings. Small businesses in Strahan, the gateway to one of the world's great wildernesses, have lost thousands. But again there are things which always give us hope and heart. At the Huonville evacuation centre, I met Lachie. He's six years old. He's been helping make breakfast every morning, and that day he was busy preparing lunch for what he reckons were 300 firefighters. Sonya Lovell and her fantastic daughter Bronwyn, who run the Que Sera Sera Coffee cart, have been putting fuel in the tank for volunteers and emergency services personnel. Julie Collins also shared with me a message that she received from one of her constituents, a heartfelt tribute to the kindness of neighbours. It goes like this: 'When it was frightening or eerily quiet, there was always someone there for us to house and water our sheep, to see if we needed somewhere for our dogs, a place to leave our cows and caravan, a meal or drinking water to share, some information, a kind word or just to say, "Where are you?" and, "Stay safe." The Huon Valley is a tremendous community, and I've never been more grateful and humble than I am today.' We are all grateful and humbled by the spirit of our people, and we're humbled by their courage. 14:38 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy It is a very great honour to be able to say a few words on behalf of my homeland. My homeland gave to Australia Qantas, Waltzing Matilda, the Royal Flying Doctor Service and the labour movement—I doubt whether there's a single family in this place of old Australians that didn't receive a benefit from the great labour movement. Dame Mary Gilmore, who is on our $10 note, one of the great ladies of the Labor movement—I hope I'm not embarrassing the Prime Minister about his great-great-aunt—is buried in my home town of Cloncurry. Briefly, what's this area about? It's one-tenth of the surface area of Australia. There are hardly any people living there: there are only about 12,000 or 15,000 of us. I think the best poem that sums it up was by Richard Magoffin, the great historian of Waltzing Matilda: 'For what do we strive? For what do we fight? For a slab of dirt on a windswept plain that'll keep us broke till we go insane.' And you say, 'Well, these people are stupid, aren't they.' My best friend is a guy called Ronnie Purse. When he went up into the wilderness there, there were no cattle. He and I owned half a million acres together. I contributed absolutely nothing, I must emphasise. I'm not saying that out of any humility; it's just the truth. By the time he'd finished 45 years up there, we were producing $50 million worth of cattle a year. These are the people that produce for you the fourth-biggest export industry in this country, and the sixth-biggest secondary industry, meat processing, is one of the biggest employers in this country. I just want to quickly mention three families. One of them, whose family I went to school with right through, I'm going to call Gary. I knew his great-grandparents. One was Chinese and came out in the gold rushes; the other was an Afghan camel driver. They didn't have it easy, I can tell you. Nor did the Scottish Presbyterians. For five generations, they've battled it out there, starting with nothing. Even three generations ago, they were just shearing. Now they've got probably one of the biggest middle-range cattle stations. They went through the TB eradication program, which took 650,000 of our cattle off us. They went through the live cattle dispute, which halved our incomes for three or four years. They went through the Japanese embargo, which the Australian government did nothing to fight, where we got $1 a head for our cattle. It's normally $100 a head. They went through the '74 flood—the most unbelievable thing I'd ever seen in my life and maybe the worst flooding in Australian history. They went through Cyclone Ted. I lost half of my cattle in Cyclone Ted. There were 127,000 head of cattle, and maybe one-tenth of our entire herd went to Cyclone Ted. They went through the fires. For those of you who haven't read Colleen McCullough's book: you've got a front of 60 kilometres; it's rolling at 60 miles an hour and it's 60 feet high. This family's neighbours did a wonderful thing—well, it was a terrible thing. He had a rifle in his hands, and the television interviewer said, 'You lost your father and your brother.' He said: 'My father and brother and the ringer. The ringer got tangled in the fence. They went back to save him, and all three of them were incinerated.' That was 20 years ago to this very day. He was loading his rifle, and they said, 'What are you doing now?' He said, 'I have to shoot my sheep.' The sun was going down; the sheep had their entrails hanging out. Bang, bang, bang! 'It's all over for us.' In this case, I rang this bloke up and I said, 'Mate, I'm just on the phone to listen.' He said: 'Bob, I went down to one of the bottom paddocks. There were 2,000 breeders in that paddock, and I didn't count 200.' That's just one paddock. He's probably got about 12 or 15 paddocks. So you'd have to say he's gone; he's got absolutely no hope of surviving. After five generations, coming out with camels—the Chinese and the Scottish Presbyterians and all of it—there's nothing left. He didn't say, 'I want some money.' He didn't say, 'I want some help.' He just said, 'Bobby, I went down and counted the 2,000 breeders, and there are less than 200 of them left.' The second case—and I'll try to be as brief as possible. This bloke's a real rough nut, a real hard man. He's one of the big men in the cattle industry in Australia. I was with him at the rodeo. A bloke knocked down three people, and he came over and joined us. It was his brother. I said, 'Why didn't you go and help him?' He said, 'Well, he didn't need any help, did he.' These are hard men. This bloke drove 200 miles into town for a rugby league meeting, to get it going. I said, 'Good of you to come down, mate.' He said, 'I didn't come down to town for rugby league. If the boy can't play football, he's not coming home.' That's the sort of people they are. I rang up one of his brothers. He's in a chopper. I said, 'I'm listening, mate'. He said, 'There's no hay in the country. Even if there was, there are no choppers to deliver it.' Then he made some emotional sounds, and the telephone blanked out. His brother—again, one of the hardest people I've ever met—on television broke down and cried. We don't cry in our country. In the third case, an extremely good-looking young woman—in one of our many disasters, her father took Cromoxin, the cruellest way possible to die; his kids had to survive on a station out in the middle of nowhere—lost one of her children from a very strange disease that we have in these areas. I rang her up. She didn't cry. She just said, 'Thank you for ringing, Mr Katter.' They're selling up their stations, one by one. Presumably, they'd been wiped out—not by the banks. I'm not trying to condemn the banks, but that's what's happening. So they're watching them go, one by one. They're a fifth-generation family. They've lost everything. She was there at the meeting in a big straw sombrero. I kept looking at her and thinking, 'Thank you for ringing, Mr Katter.' One-tenth of the nation's cattle herd is in this area. It's the fourth-biggest export earner the country has. In Cyclone Ted we lost 127,000 head, and they're telling us that the number will be four or five times those losses. And if we lose 300,000 calf factories, 300,000 cows, once you process them out you're looking at $600 million a year. If you say, 'Well, I'll capitalise that,' then you're looking at $6,000 million worth of losses. In passing, I must mention, Mr Prime Minister and Mr Leader of the Opposition, we need a centralised control. Peter Beattie was passionate and very good. He brought in General Cosgrove for Cyclone Larry. Finally, I can't help but say: 'Why are you stupid? Why do you keep going up there?' They say: 'Yeah, well, we're giving our country one-tenth of its entire cattle industry. Please, get behind us—for us to keep going.' I praise the Prime Minister very greatly here. If we can hold a little bit of that water back it's not going to solve our problems, but one-tenth of that floodwater—where it's 30 or 40 feet over the bridge at Normanton, it will only be one-tenth less than that height. That's a big thing. If we do those water schemes that we're doing now—thank you, Prime Minister, and thank you, Mr Leader of the Opposition, because you people have been very positive towards it—in those three towns, the water is stored and we can grow fodder so that when we get in these situations we have an answer. The fodder is there. With each of these cattle stations—all of them—their creeks and rivers run every year. We're not like the rest of Australia. Our creeks and rivers run every year. Our wet season is compressed into a tiny month or two-month period. So if you give them that, on their stations and in their towns, we can solve these problems. I can't speak today without mentioning the reconstruction authority. In every disaster in Australian history, up to 20 years ago, the government went in. They bought the debt off the banks. The banks wanted to offload it, so the banks would give you a 70 per cent cut. Your debt was immediately cut by 30 per cent. Then you'd have government interest rates. I don't know what they are now. They were a bit under three per cent last time I looked. And that's all you'd pay. These blokes are now paying, maybe, $100,000 a year. The banks are suddenly paying about $30,000 or $25,000 a year. That's how we brought all of our industries through. I speak with great confidence because that's exactly what we did in the sugar industry when I had responsibility for the same thing. Finally, I hope, Mr Prime Minister and Mr Leader of the Opposition, that our country has not lost its vision. Surely we can see that we can hold back a little bit of those massive floodwaters drowning Townsville, regularly drowning Ingham, and send it out onto those barren western plains, which have the best soil in the world—that's the research station talking, not me—flat, rolling, treeless black soil. I'll finish on that note. There is a vision for the future. Out of all of this hardness and trauma and heartbreak, please let us be able to see a vision for our country. 14:50 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I am a born and raised Townsvillean. It is my home. I have been through our worst natural disasters. I was there during Cyclone Althea and all of the subsequent cyclones, the massive flood of the late 1970s, the 1988 flood, which was dubbed 'The Night of Noah'. But nothing can compare to the disaster and devastation of the floods we experienced last week. Townsville experienced the worst floods in our recorded history. We received a year's rainfall in nine days, with 1,134 millimetres recorded up to 9 am, Monday, 4 February 2019, reaching over 1.65 metres. The Ross River Dam reached a record-breaking 244 per cent capacity. More than 22,000 homes and 110 roads in Townsville were affected by this extreme weather event. Over the last week, I have been visiting the residents in the areas affected by this disaster—people like Elaine from Railway Estate, whose home has been destroyed and whose irreplaceable antique family furniture has been lost, and residents on Queens Road, Hermit Park, whose livelihoods and lifetime belongings have been left in piles on the side of the road. I understand what people are going through because my mother was seriously affected as well. I understand what it is like to stand beside a loved family member as they part with their precious belongings because their home has been inundated. It becomes simply overwhelming, and the slightest thing can be the tipping point. For my mum, it was a large wooden frog that was given to her by my brother. When I said to her, 'It's destroyed, Mum; it will have to go,' she simply burst into tears. So we kept it, damaged and all. These floods have destroyed livelihoods, but they cannot break the spirit of Townsvillean people, because after the devastation Townsville is showing just how strong and resilient we truly are. The entire community has been out helping—people taking those who have been affected by the floods into their homes without a second thought; the entire city rolling up its sleeves to get on with the massive clean-up; and businesses donating food, tarpaulins, money, goods and shelter. Our Australian Defence Force, police and ambulance services, firefighters and other emergency services, the SES, council workers and Ergon workers were out during the lead-up to the awful night, rescuing residents in very unsafe conditions. They are still out there now helping to clean up. We had two policemen who hung on, one to a tree and one to a light pole, waiting for nearly an hour to be rescued. To my volunteers who have been out since day one helping to shift the furniture and clean enormous amounts of mould—to all of the generous volunteers—I want to say, in this place, a huge thank you, because you are what makes Townsville great. Together we will recover and together we will get through this, and we will be better than we were before. 14:53 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson I will make my comments brief. I was shocked to see the devastation, so widespread across the Townsville region, that was caused by these floods, particularly in areas in my electorate of Dawson. Suburbs such as Oonoonba, Idalia and Annandale were hard hit, all of them suburbs that border on the Ross River. I wonder what was going through people's heads as they saw that tragedy unfold that night. They must have been thinking that it was the worst thing they'd ever seen. As the Prime Minister and I arrived in Idalia the day after the floodwaters had receded—it was Tuesday—people were coming back to their homes and looking at the mess. We walked through a couple of homes, and they were an absolute mess. I couldn't help but think, 'What is going through their heads?' We walked through the home of a lady with a young daughter. Her home is uninsured. Without the generous payments that state and federal governments make available, she would have to bear extra costs, and there would have been many others just like her throughout the community. What I went to tell all those people is that there is hope. There definitely is hope. The member for Herbert has just told us about the community effort. I saw that, too, from those who were on the frontline, whether it was police; our Australian Defence Force personnel, with the 3rd Brigade led quite ably by Brigadier Scott Winter; and other emergency services personnel, whether they were paramedics, ambulance or fire brigade. People who were directly affected themselves were giving up their time, while their homes were damaged, and going out and helping others. More than that—there were volunteers. I saw young veterans out there cleaning up the homes of people they didn't even know. That is the kind of spirit that Townsvilleans and North Queenslanders have. I went to the Calvary Christian Church, where, within one day, they had amassed what looked like a warehouse of linen, children's clothes and a whole range of other things that people may have needed in the aftermath of this event. They were inviting people to come and get that stuff for free. On top of that, they were inviting them to come in and have a meal if they couldn't prepare one at home themselves. The Salvos actually went into all of the evacuation centres and prepared all the meals for the people there. The hope was there in those communities. The Cowboys were going out on boats and rescuing people in suburbs like Idalia and Oonoonba. That stuff is priceless. That stuff is what shines through in such a terrible disaster as the one we have seen. Yes, we have spoken about it here numerous times, including all the woes of insurance—I certainly know about that, having helped my community with Cyclone Debbie. All the woes of the insurance dramas are going to come through, and this place will be watching and ensuring the right thing is done by all of those who have copped the brunt of this natural disaster. But what I say to all of those people is that there is hope—it is there in your community—and we are looking out for you, and, if help is needed, this House will surely provide it. Mr Katter interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I haven't called the member for Kennedy yet. The member for Kennedy can speak briefly; he has had a long indulgence. 14:57 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I wanted to mention Townsville and the northern beaches area. On the first day, when I was working on sandbagging, there was a lady who was 66 years of age—I hope she doesn't mind me mentioning that—working on one side of me and two 13-year-old kids working on the other side of me. The rest of them were miners on rostered weeks off. They worked there all day long; there was about a quarter of an acre covered in sandbags. I found it very inspirational. I congratulate and back up the member for Dawson and the member for Herbert. 14:58 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I speak today on behalf of my fellow Tasmanian federal members in this place and on behalf of our communities when I say thank you to the nation. Whilst the fire emergency might be extinguished a little in Tasmania, certainly the fires are not out. Tasmania continues to burn, as we have heard from both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. But Tasmanian communities have been strong. Sadly, we've been through it before. The 1967 bushfires in Tasmania are well remembered. The bushfires over recent weeks have re-traumatised some of the communities in Tasmania. This fire was unusual. It was unusual in that the emergency went on for 2½ to three weeks. One of the hardest things I had to do during those few weeks was go to the evacuation centre and sit and talk to the local residents. One gentleman told me he wasn't so worried about himself; he was worried about his wife, who suffered from some anxiety. The constant packing up and being on edge—every day waking up, listening to the emergency warnings, hearing about where the fire was or wasn't and the change of direction from the wind—had put his wife and him on edge. It was the unknown day in, day out. They were waking up—or actually seeing light, because, of course, they rarely slept—and not knowing what the evening before had brought and what the coming days would bring. It was: 'You can go home. You may be able to go home. You can retrieve a few more of your things if you have time. We'll close the road only one way.' It was the backwards and forwards that was really taking its toll on these individuals and their families. On behalf of Tasmanians I want to put on record thanks for the wonderful support that we have received from all across the country and from the fire brigades from other states and overseas. Support and help has come in from all over Australia. We say thank you to Australia for the support we have received. I want to place on record my thanks to the local mayor in my Huon Valley. She has been extraordinary. She is a new mayor. She was elected only in October. She was at the evacuation centre every day for 2½ weeks, even though she had been evacuated from her own home. She was worried about her own community. She was there making sure that people got fed and that medications, mental health support and the practical things people evacuated from their homes with no notice or little notice needed day to day were available. It has been an extraordinary effort by the three tiers of government, particularly by local government, which has borne a lot of the burden in Tasmania. I want to say a huge thank you to the volunteer fire brigade in particular. There is a story running about one of the firemen in my electorate who missed his son's first Christmas, his son's first birthday and his wedding anniversary because as a volunteer firefighter he had been fighting fires every day since Christmas Day right through till early February. It has been an extraordinary time in Tasmania. These fires are quite unusual. As I've said, they are now mostly under control, but they continue to burn. They also of course continue to impact the World Heritage area and the tourism and small businesses in Tasmania. Tasmanian businesses would want me to say that they're still open for business. Most of the roads in Tasmania are still open. Most of our national parks are still open. People should still come and visit Tasmania because we need you more than ever at this difficult time as we recover. We are a resilient community. As I've said, we've been through this before and we'll get through it again. Thank you. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 33 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 15:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I table a revised ministry list, reflecting the appointment of Andrew Gee to the ministry as the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister. The document read as follows— MORRISON MINISTRY Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Human Services in the Social Services portfolio and a Department of Veterans' Affairs in the Defence portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 34 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 15:02 The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call questions without notice, I will do some welcomes, given the hour of the day. I inform the House that we have joining us this afternoon a delegation from Vanuatu, led by their foreign minister and accompanied by the high commissioner. On behalf of the House, we extend a very warm welcome. I also inform the House that we will have joining us in the chamber this afternoon at various times a number of former members of parliament, including John Haslem, the Hon. Judi Moylan, the Hon. Barry O'Farrell and Clive Palmer. On behalf of members, I welcome you all. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 34 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry 34 15:03 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. This government has created a part-time parliament by scheduling just 10 sitting days in eight months. Why is the Prime Minister stopping the parliament from sitting for more days—preventing the parliament from legislating the recommendations of the banking royal commission before the election? After voting against the banking royal commission no fewer than 26 times, why is the Prime Minister insisting on another delay? 15:03 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The tone changed pretty quickly there, didn't it? I thank the member for the question. The question goes to the matters that the government is dealing with in this parliament. The next big thing the government is doing is handing down a surplus budget on 2 April. The budget has been brought forward to 2 April. In the normal course of events, this is the sitting schedule that enables the budget to be prepared on that day. So the government will hand down the first surplus budget by any government in 12 years. That's what we're doing. That's what we're working on—restoring the budget to balance. The budget was left in tatters by the Labor Party the last time they had the opportunity to manage the treasury bench. I was asked about the recommendations of the royal commission. It has now been eight days, and we are still waiting for a response to the royal commission from the Leader of the Opposition. What we have from the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party is an in-principle response. Are we going to have an in-principle budget from the Labor Party if they're elected? Are we going to have in-principle border protection? Are we going to have in-principle budgets in the future? No. They have carped about this issue, but when it comes to actually providing a response themselves they are yet to do so. They are yet to provide that response. Our full response means that we are taking action on all 76 recommendations. Indeed, there is legislation that the opposition can support even now in this chamber and in the other chamber to take action on those measures. When we introduced the Banking Executive Accountability Regime and the bank levy, who dragged their feet in supporting those bills? The Labor Party. The Labor Party whinged and carped and complained and delayed and stalled on both bills. After dragging them to the table, they eventually voted for it and claimed it was bipartisanship. But that is always the way with the Labor Party. Whether it's on important matters of economic security or national security, you have to drag them to the table. Now, I also make the point that there are 40 recommendations that require legislation. The Law Council has said you don't go and do that in some sort of pre-election frenzy. What you do is calmly and carefully prepare that legislation. You consult on it to ensure there are no unintended consequences and you do it as a responsible and rational government. The leader of the Labor Party will take a reckless approach to our economy, and his response on this matter determines that. (Time expired) Economy 35 15:06 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House the government's plan for a strong economy and a secure future and what this means for all Australians, including people living in my electorate of Dunkley? Why is the government determined to stick to its plan? 15:07 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Dunkley for his question. Mr Speaker, we do have such a plan. It's a plan we have been implementing since we were first elected 5½ years ago, which I upgraded and released just two weeks ago. I table that economic plan for a stronger economy and a secure future. That is our plan that is building an even stronger Australia both now and in the future. It is the plan that has delivered already more than a million jobs ahead of the five-year promise that we took to the election back in 2013. It is the plan that has already delivered lower taxes for some 10 million taxpayers around the country. It is the plan that has delivered lower taxes for 3.3 million small businesses, employing seven million Australians. It is the plan that has delivered the lowest level of welfare dependency of the working-age population in more than 30 years. It is the plan that has delivered the highest level of employment around the prime-age working population that we have seen in economic record. It is the plan that is delivering the essential services that Australians rely on, because it is only from a stronger economy that you can deliver those essential services that Australians rely on. There is some $37.6 billion in schools funding, an average of a 62 per cent increase in funding per student. There is a $5.7 billion fund and support for drought relief, as the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has been driving forward. There is record funding for both Medicare, going from $25 billion to $29 billion, and the highest bulk-billing rates we have seen, with bulk-billing at record levels. We have seen a fully funded NDIS, with 1,900 new medicines. All of this is funded by a stronger economy and a government that knows how to manage the budget. Now, that is what we've been delivering. That's what our economic plan is about. It's about having a stronger economy. Now, there are alternative plans, and they are the alternative plans of the leader of the Labor Party, who wants to take $200 billion and higher taxes—the biggest tax wet blanket—and throw it across the economy, and he thinks it will make no difference. Taxing the economy out of existence is the plan of the leader of the Labor Party. Our plan is to make our economy stronger, and that's why our plan will generate 1¼ million new jobs over the next five years. We have the record to demonstrate that we have generated those jobs. There is jobs growth for younger people, with the greatest period of jobs growth for young people that this country has seen—an economic record. There is jobs growth for older Australians, above the age of 55. There is jobs growth for women, as we've seen record participation levels for women, with over 650,000 jobs created. Our economic plan is creating a stronger Australia. Labor's plans will create a weaker Australia. Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry 35 15:10 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister: The former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has apologised for not calling the banking royal commission earlier. Can the now Prime Minister confirm media reports that he was in fact the reason for the delay? And will the Prime Minister now say 'sorry' for delaying the banking royal commission by voting against it 26 times? 15:10 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I refer the member to my comments last year on this matter, where I made very plain my regret for not having called the royal commission sooner. But I remind the member that I was the Treasurer who did call the royal commission and I am the Prime Minister who has received the report of that royal commission and is acting on the recommendations of the royal commission. I am the Prime Minister who, as the then Treasurer, introduced the Banking Executive Accountability Regime. I am the Prime Minister who, as the then Treasurer, with the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, introduced the Australian Financial Complaints Authority and increased funding for ASIC to ensure that they had the powers, the penalties and the resources to do the job. Ms Rowland interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Greenway! Mr MORRISON E3L Now, when the leader of the Labor Party was the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, what did he do? Did he call a royal commission? As the Leader of the Opposition did he even draft a terms of reference for a royal commission? No. When it comes to financial services, the Leader of the Opposition sees people's problems as only a prop for political opportunism. Small Business 36 15:11 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how our government is backing small business across Australia to get ahead, including in my electorate of Brisbane? And is the Treasurer aware of any different approaches that would damage the economy and hurt enterprising small businesses? 15:12 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Brisbane for his question, because we on this side of the House all know that he is fighting hard for the more than 30,000 small businesses in his electorate. I had the great pleasure to join the member at Clayfield Seafood Market in his electorate, with the owner, Nick, and to hear firsthand how he has been one of the more than 300,000 small businesses that have taken advantage of the government's instant asset write-off. My message to Nick and to the more than three million small businesses across the country is that not only is the government continuing with the instant asset write-off but the coalition is expanding it from $20,000 to $25,000. This will enable a coffee shop to be able to get a new coffee machine, it enable a baker to get a new oven and it will enable a courier to get a new vehicle, because we are backing small business. This is one of many measures that we on this side of the House have taken to back the engine room of the economy, Australia's small businesses, including ensuring that the Commonwealth government is paying businesses on time—that we are a model payer and that we are inspiring other companies around the country. So, 97 per cent of contracts under a million dollars are being paid within 30 days by the Commonwealth. But now we are looking to ensure that contracts under $1 million are paid within 20 days, because we don't want small business to be a bank for big business. We are ensuring that red tape is being cut—$6 billion of red tape has been cut. There is the $2 billion Australian Business Securitisation Fund to ensure more competition, more liquidity and more finance for small businesses. And, of course, there are tax cuts. We have delivered a tax cut to more than three million businesses. Those opposite had to be brought, kicking and screaming, to support the tax cuts. I'm asked if I am aware of any alternative approaches, and risks to small business. We know that those opposite are planning a $17 billion hit on 300,000 small businesses, including discretionary trusts. These are family businesses that are going to be hit by the Labor Party as part of its $200 billion in new taxes. Nobody is safe from the Labor Party and their plan for higher taxes on small business. Liberal Party Leadership 36 15:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that, in a candid interview earlier this week, the Minister for Defence was reported to have said, 'Malcolm is Aslan to me.' Noting that the pathway to Narnia is through the cabinet, will the Prime Minister finally tell the Australian people, including the Minister for Defence, why his beloved Aslan, Malcolm Turnbull, is no longer the Prime Minister of Australia? The SPEAKER 00APG That question is out of order, and the member for Grayndler knows it. Cattle Industry 36 15:16 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy My question is to the Prime Minister. PM, the mid-west and gulf area is one 10th of the entire cattle industry, our fourth biggest exporter. It is now decimated by droughts, flooding and the resulting terminal health conditions. With no stock, massive existing debt and hundreds of thousands of rotting carcasses to clean up, farmers will have no capacity to pay their mortgages, let alone restore and restock. Will the government commit to a reconstruction authority, cutting existing debt by 30 per cent and providing finance at government interest rates? Surely, PM, without this minimal action, North Queensland's calamity, its misery, and its human and economic hardship will worsen exponentially. 15:16 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Kennedy for his question and I welcome his remarks earlier in the debate, when he spoke of the impact of the floods on western Queensland. We have already committed to, and the minister for agriculture, as we speak, is putting together, a recovery and restructuring plan for north-western Queensland. I have had now two phone hook-ups, as you know, with all of the mayors across those districts, and that was one of the first things that were raised in those meetings: what is the plan to get the cattle industry in north-western Queensland back on its feet? There are many options that will be considered as that plan is being brought together, and I was just talking to one of the mayors this morning—getting the data in, understanding the impacts on everything, such as the impacts on the rail link that goes from Cloncurry right across that entire region. That could be, basically, out of order for a very, very long period of time—potentially years, certainly the next six to 12 months. There are a large number of things that will need to be done in north-western Queensland. But a significant thing in those challenges is the restoration of the Queensland cattle industry. This isn't trying to prop up an industry that doesn't have a future; this is an industry which as you remarked before, Member for Kennedy, has a massive future for Australia, and we need to be there to support rebuilding that industry in North Queensland. What I undertake, to you and to this House and to the people in North Queensland, is that the plan that will come forward from the minister for agriculture will address these issues. Whether or not it is the specific recommendation that you are making, everything will be put on the table to consider. But the one thing that we will ensure is that there is a recovery and restoration plan for North Queensland cattle farmers to be able to return to prosperity, which we know is ahead, and we'll be there to do that in partnership with them. One of the important things that have been inherent in our response to this is to work just so closely with those local communities, and they are feeding back through those mayors right now. There's a meeting on, I think, tomorrow, where they are going through the recommendations that they will be putting to us in terms of the plan coming forward. So I welcome all suggestions, because I think we are joined together in the great task of ensuring that that cattle industry will be as great as it was always going to be in the future, if not even greater. Economy 37 15:19 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the government's strong economic management is bringing the budget back into surplus and making it possible to pay back Labor's debt? Is the Treasurer aware of higher taxing alternatives? 15:20 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Fisher for his question. He knows that this side of the House is presiding over a strong Australian economy. When we came to government, economic growth was 2.1 per cent; today it is 2.8 per cent. When we came to government, unemployment was 5.7 per cent; today it is five per cent, the lowest level in seven years. We on this side of the House have created more than 1.2 million new jobs. We are seeing the greatest proportion of those aged between 25 and 54 in employment on record, over 80 per cent, and over 100,000 people aged 15 to 24 got a new job over the last financial year. That was the highest number on record. 200,000 Australian women found employment in 2017-18, which was the highest number in 30 years. Not only are we creating jobs and growing the economy but this year, when we deliver a budget on 2 April, it will be the first budget surplus in over a decade. The benefit of having a strong economy is that you can spend more money on hospitals and schools, list more drugs on the PBS and spend a record $75 billion on congestion-busting infrastructure. When we deliver surpluses in the years ahead, we will be paying back Labor's debt. The Labor Party left us $240 billion in accumulated deficits. When the Labor Party was last in office, debt was growing by a remarkable 30 per cent plus per year. That was the Labor Party's record. Now, what is the risk to the Australian economy? It's $200 billion of higher taxes from those opposite: on your business, your income, your savings, your property and your electricity bill. They are hitting 900,000-plus retirees and people planning for retirement and 200,000 self-managed super funds. The member for McMahon, with his sheer arrogance, says to those people: 'If you don't like our policy, don't vote for us.' The Leader of the Opposition was afraid to stand up and defend the member for McMahon. How long will it be before he abandons him and his disastrous retiree tax? Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry 37 15:23 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister voted against the banking royal commission 26 times, tried to give the big banks a $17 billion handout and is now delaying action on the banking royal commission until after the election. Isn't it the case that this Prime Minister just can't be trusted when it comes to the banks, because he is only ever interested in looking after the top end of town? 15:23 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for her question. There is only one side of politics—that is, this side of the House—that is getting on with taking action on the 76 recommendations. Those opposite, who demanded that the report be put out immediately so that they could immediately respond to it, have had the report now for eight days and there is no response. Let me read to you what the member for Hotham said eight days ago: 'We will implement every single recommendation that is in the royal commission's report.' Where is the response? Let's see if the Labor Party abandons the 26,000 Australians working with mortgage brokers. Let's see if the Labor Party ignores the recommendations of the Productivity Commission and what they said about what it would mean for competition if you got rid of the fee model for mortgage brokers. At the end of the day, we on this side of the House have taken a responsible, cautious approach, and we are taking action on all 76 recommendations. But, what is more, Commissioner Hayne has endorsed the work of the now Prime Minister and then Treasurer in bringing in place the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, by saying that it should not only be enforced within banks but be extended to insurance and superannuation funds as well, and he has endorsed the work that we have done in relation to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, because that policy that's been put in place—and I commend the member for Higgins and the now Prime Minister for the work that they did—is providing an opportunity for people to be heard. We're even going further than the Hayne royal commission, ensuring that we put in place a compensation scheme of last resort and that, for the next 12 months, AFCA will be able to hear the concerns of misconduct by people going back a decade, not just the six years which is currently in place. We have legislation before this parliament that the Labor Party can support which will ensure that directors of superannuation funds will face a civil penalty, and we will also be amending this legislation to include the Hayne royal commission recommendation that trustees of super funds will also face those civil penalties. So, if the Labor Party want to get on and implement the Hayne royal commission recommendations, they should get on and support our legislation that is currently before the parliament. Employment 38 15:26 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations and Minister for Women. Will the minister update the House on how the government's economic plan is helping to get more Australians, including more women, into the workforce? How does this compare with different approaches? 15:26 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for Forrest for her question. She must be one of the hardest working members in this place, and I congratulate her on being the very first female Chief Government Whip in this place—and what a fantastic job she does! Like the rest of this side of the chamber, she knows how important it is to give all Australians the opportunity to be able to get a job, to enter the workforce and to be able to secure their financial future, because she understands that a job does just that: it helps to build financial security for yourself and for your family, and it gives people and families more choices about their lives. We are delivering as a government, through our economic plan, the ability to create those jobs through lower taxes and more investment. We have in fact delivered, under our economic stewardship, more than 1.2 million new jobs in this country, which means that we have more Australians in work than ever before. This is a record. As Minister for Women, I'm particularly pleased that the majority of those 1.2 million new jobs are in fact held by women. In fact, we are at an all-time high when you consider the number of women who are in work now: almost six million women in work right now, which is a record. They are enjoying the financial benefits of being able to get and keep a job. In fact, when you compare us to those opposite, there are 700,000 more women in the workforce compared to when Labor left office, and there are more women in full-time work, which is now standing at a record high, with around 400,000 more women in full-time jobs compared to when Labor left office. So the contrast couldn't be clearer. Under our government, there are more people in work than ever before and more women in work than ever before. Under those opposite, there will be fewer people employed. We can't help but also point out the fact that, when people earn a wage, 9.5 per cent of that wage goes to their retirement savings, and we as a government have been delivering. We've been delivering for all Australians but particularly for women. We're the ones who deliver the low-income superannuation tax offset, which helps women, particularly low-income women, benefiting around 1.9 million Australian women to the tune of half a billion dollars each and every year. We're giving flexibility measures, catch-up contributions and concessional contributions, levelling the playing field. These are things that the Leader of the Opposition would scrap if he were given the opportunity to govern, and he would also impose a mega retiree tax that would hurt Australian women. Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry 38 15:29 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and every member of his government voted against the banking royal commission not once, not twice, but 26 times. Why did the Prime Minister vote against the banking royal commission 26 times? Why did he ignore the victims of the banks to protect the top end of town? And, Prime Minister, why can't you just say you're sorry? 15:30 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The question is: is the Leader of the Opposition sorry for the 10,000 victims of Trio? Is the Leader of the Opposition sorry for what happened to the Storm Financial victims and the Opes Prime victims? The reality is that we, on this side of the House, have provided a comprehensive response to the Hayne royal commission. We are taking action on 76 recommendations. We are putting in place greater protections for Australian consumers. We are putting in place greater accountability mechanisms for the financial system. We are ensuring that our regulators are fit for purpose—regulators that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the financial services minister, said were the best in the world. We are also taking action to ensure that people get redress—an opportunity to be heard and compensation—where they have suffered misconduct. There's a clear contrast: those opposite are playing politics; we're getting on with taking action. We are getting on with ensuring that the financial system will put the interests of consumers first. We understand the misconduct that has occurred which has been documented in detail by the Hayne royal commission: broken businesses and broken lives; profits put before people; greed that led to those outcomes. And that is why we are taking action on all 76 recommendations. As for the Labor Party, I don't know what they're waiting for and I don't know whom they're trying to appease, but, with double the amount of time to consider the royal commission, they haven't even produced their response. Infrastructure 39 15:32 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how a strong economy enables the government to deliver the infrastructure that regional Australia relies on? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any risk to our regions from different approaches? 15:32 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Flynn for his question. It's a good one. The Liberals and Nationals believe in building dams. And, certainly with the summer that we are experiencing at the moment, with the excess of water in the north of Queensland and those devastating floods contrasting very starkly with the dry areas of the Murray-Darling Basin and elsewhere throughout South Australia and throughout Tasmania, we do need to build more dams. We need to get on with the job of flood mitigation and we need to get more on the job of storing water for those dry times. I was in the member for Maranoa's electorate just recently. We looked at a very good site—the Emu Swamp site—where, potentially, we could build a dam that would increase agriculture. We're getting on with the job. SunWater is progressing preconstruction activities with the Rookwood Weir, in which the federal Liberals and Nationals have invested $176.1 million. That's in the member for Capricornia's electorate, west of Rockhampton. It is a tremendous project. We'll start building that during the 2019 dry season. A billion dollars worth of increased agricultural production—that's what Rookwood Weir will do. But, further than that: 2,100 jobs. The members for Flynn and Capricornia have fought hard for that. They listened to their constituents and, more than that, they have delivered. When it comes to the member for Flynn, he listened to his constituents when they talked about the North and South Burnett regional feasibility study. That's why the Liberals and Nationals have invested $2 million in that. It's something that he fought hard for, it's something that he delivered, and it has tremendous local support. The North Burnett mayor, Rachel Chambers, says, 'Through Ken's hard work, North and South Burnett will benefit immensely, from paddock to plate, through the feasibility study.' And the mayor is absolutely right. Kristy Frahm, the chief executive officer of the Burnett Inland Economic Development Organisation, said, 'Congratulations and well done to everyone involved. We can't wait to see these projects progress.' And progress they will, thanks to the additional half a billion dollars—$500 million—in the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund. That's what we've put on the table. But I'm asked what stands in the way. I'm looking at what stands in the way. What stands in the way is those opposite who do not believe in building dams, those opposite who do not believe in the future drought fund. We've put $3.9 billion on the table to make Australia more resilient when it comes to the next drought. But we got this press release, last night, from Labor. The titles on the press release, quite frankly, are longer than the words in it—not worth the paper they're written on. They do not believe in dams. They do not believe in protecting Australia from future droughts. Taxation 39 15:36 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, and I refer to his responsibility for taxation and administration. Is the Assistant Treasurer aware of reports that failed lobbying firm Shac Communications donated over $100,000 to the Assistant Treasurer's infamous Fadden Forum shortly before going into liquidation, with debts of over $430,000, including to the tax office? Has the minister sought advice on whether the tax office is able to claw back these donations so the revenue can be invested in schools, hospitals and infrastructure instead of the Liberal Party? The SPEAKER 00APG Leader of the House? Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, I put it to you that these are clearly party matters—and, in fact, ancient party matters—and not in the responsibility of the minister, the Assistant Treasurer, not now and not at the time that they occurred, when he wasn't even a member of the executive. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business, on the point of order from the Leader of the House? Mr Burke DYW In the first instance, in terms of the responsibilities of the Assistant Treasurer, the official government statement has him being responsible for both taxation and administration. The relevance of the question is not because the donation was made to a fund in his electorate. The relevance of the question is because it goes to the return of taxation money to the tax office. The SPEAKER 00APG I still think that the question has a series of problems. I appreciate that whoever wrote the question is trying to bend it in a way that would force the minister to reply. Certainly the point the Leader of the House makes, with respect to the minister not being in that position at the relevant time, is valid. But what I would say is, having listened to it, as Assistant Treasurer, I think the minister responsible for the tax office can be questioned on matters of tax administration. I won't go back to earlier examples that involve me as a questioner with a former Assistant Treasurer I'm sort of gazing at. It doesn't mean that the minister can canvas many of the matters, necessarily, that have been raised, but I think a question on administration is in order, and how he deals with that question of administration is simply a matter for him. 15:38 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden Let me thank the member opposite for his question on tax administration and I, like many members in this House—indeed, all members on this side—am more than happy to have a discussion about tax administration and how it's performed. Why don't we start with the government's MAAL law, in terms of anti-avoidance law, a series of legislation that those opposite voted against. That series of legislation has now collected $5.6 billion in tax. That's $5.6 billion from multinationals and large corporations. Furthermore, not only did those opposite vote against that, the government's multinational anti-avoidance legislation has now collected over $1 billion of tax from the large ecommerce providers—the Googles, the Apples, the Amazons. Again, this is something that those opposite voted against. So, when it comes to administration of tax, can I suggest that this side of the House has a great story to tell, and that side of the House, who voted against it, has a very poor story indeed. Queensland: Floods 40 15:40 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister update the House on the devastating impact that the recent monsoonal rains have had on graziers in north-west and northern Queensland and their families? And what assistance is the government providing to give immediate support to these families who are in so much desperate need? 15:40 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the honourable member for his question and his interest in these devastating floods. I visited the areas affected last week and saw the sheer magnitude of an inland sea some 35 kilometres wide. I witnessed the stock that were stranded in that inland sea. I witnessed the stock that got out of that sea and perished because of the cold weather that came after the monsoon. I was honoured to visit a couple of farmers who'd lost everything—all their breeding stock—and who had fought to keep those livestock alive during drought, and it was the last symbol of their defiance of that drought to see them all gone. And the stoicism of these people: for them to say that there was some poor bugger worse off than them is something I'll never forget. They are great Australians. In these times we come together as Australians, and we come together at all levels of government—leadership from both the state and the federal government. I'm proud to say that both the Premier of Queensland and the Prime Minister have agreed to make sure that every adult within those farming households gets $1,000, and $400 for every child, to make sure that they have dignity and respect and to make sure that they have bread and butter on the table. With leadership, the Premier and the Prime Minister have also agreed to increase category C funding from $25,000 to $75,000, because of the sheer devastation of infrastructure as a result of this amount of water. It's also about making sure that we look after those communities, those shires, in putting $1 million into those communities to help them rebuild the key infrastructure, to rebuild those communities' connectivity. Another important aspect of this is mental health. Proudly, we're investing $3 million to make sure there's someone there to talk to. The grief that will come in the ensuing days and weeks is something that cannot be underestimated. It's important that we act together. It's important when you hear about the euphoria that came with the rains in the initial few days. Given the devastation of three or four more days that wiped out these people's livelihoods, you understand the grief that will come. It's not confined just to the adults; it's also in the faces of those children. We heard about Madison and Wyatt Hall, who saw that on their mother's face after she came back and inspected her property and found 800 of her breeders dead—the devastation of that family. I say to you, Madison and Wyatt: help is on the way; please do not worry. This parliament, this nation, will help you. 15:43 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter On indulgence—Nothing invites bipartisanship in this place more than the impacts of natural disaster on any part of the Australian community. Of course, I join with the minister in his expressions of sympathy and concern for all those who have been affected, particularly those in the agriculture sector. And, of course, the opposition stands with the government as one, ready to do anything we can to assist those who need help. Taxation 41 15:44 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. I refer to his answer to my previous question. Has the minister sought advice on whether the tax office is able to claw back the donation from Shac Communications? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House on a point of order? Mr Pyne 9V5 The member for Isaacs's question was prefaced with, 'I refer to the Assistant Treasurer's previous answer,' and then the question he asked had absolutely nothing to do with the Assistant Treasurer's previous answer. His previous answer was about tax administration and the tax being paid by multinationals— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will pause. If everyone stops interjecting, I'll be able to hear the Leader of the House. Could you rewind about 10 seconds. Mr Pyne 9V5 The Assistant Treasurer's answer was about the tax being paid by multinationals, because, as you pointed out, he was required to answer on tax administration, which is his responsibility. The member for Isaacs is now trying to use the Assistant Treasurer's previous answer to ask the question he asked before by prefacing it with, 'I refer to the Assistant Treasurer's previous answer,' which is the usual method of doing so, yet the Assistant Treasurer didn't make mention of any of the subjects covered in the member for Isaacs's question. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business on the point of order? Mr Burke DYW While the question the member for Isaacs asked did refer to the answer to the previous question, did it rely on that for relevance? It in fact took out the sections of the earlier question that you'd raised an objection to and went specifically to only the issues for which he is responsible as a minister. The Treasury portfolio arrangements, where they list the Assistant Treasurer's responsibilities, make clear that they include taxation legislation and administration. This question goes to the administration of the tax office and nothing else. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 00APG I don't need to hear from the Leader of the House; I'm ready to make a ruling. It's an interesting question, the way the member for Isaacs has asked it, because he has used the reference to the previous answer. That, as the Manager of Opposition Business knows, has in the past opened ministers to questions about words they've said. In this case, I believe, by having that as the preamble, it rules that question out of order. Let me be blunt: I think if it didn't have that—if it just had the second sentence—it would be in order, but because you're referring to something he said and trying to link it, I don't believe it is in order; I really don't. I'll say very clearly: the member for Isaacs has asked these questions before, particularly of a former Special Minister of State. If he looks confused, I'd invite him to look at the Hansard of the text of those questions at that time. We'll go to the next question, and that's from the member for Dawson. Australian Natural Disasters 41 15:47 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson My question is to the Minister for Human Services. Will the minister update the House on the steps the government is taking to support those affected by terrible natural disasters—namely the bushfires in Tasmania and the floods in North Queensland—in cities and towns such as Townsville, Groper Creek, Giru and the north-west? With the recent changes that have been made for responding to these disasters, I ask: what additional services have been made available to assist Australians during this most challenging time? 15:47 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the member for Dawson for that question, and I acknowledge his hard work on behalf of his community. During his time as their member he's had to shepherd his community through several very serious disasters, and he does so with great vigour. As the minister formerly responsible for Emergency Management Australia, I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that he is a fierce advocate on behalf of his community, and he does a tremendous job. As the member knows, we as a government are committed to helping out Australians when they are impacted by things such as the terrible flooding we've seen in Queensland and the fires we've seen in Tasmania that have been discussed extensively in the House today. The impact of those disasters is absolutely devastating on those communities and the families within those communities. My department, the Department of Human Services, plays a key role in delivering support services when catastrophic events occur, and I'm very proud of how quickly we've been able to deploy our support services to these affected regions. I directed more than 1,500 staff from my department to answer calls, process claims and provide support to disaster-affected people. Our information line is open every day and getting assistance out the door to people directly affected by these natural disasters. In addition, about 30 staff from my department, including our social workers, have been posted to the evacuation centres to provide information about support services to people who have suffered loss from the disaster, including damage to their property and lost income. Many of the staff from my department have been directly impacted by these disasters. Indeed, I was talking to the secretary this morning and she reminded me that 20 per cent of the staff in my department have been directly impacted. But that has not stopped them from going to work and supporting their communities. We're also deploying our mobile service centres to assist people in hard-to-reach areas and help them get back to their normal routine. The government's disaster recovery allowance has been activated for Tasmania, and the disaster recovery allowance and disaster recovery payment have been activated for Townsville to provide further support for those families and individuals that have been affected. As of yesterday afternoon, I'm pleased to advise the House around 35,000 claims for the Australian government disaster recovery payment have been granted, with more than $42 million already paid into people's bank accounts. More than 130 claims for disaster recovery allowance have been granted, helping people pay their bills, feed their families and get on with their life. Whilst the immediate danger has passed, we will start to move into the long and difficult process of recovery, repair and rebuilding. I want to reassure everybody in these affected areas that the Australian government will be there every step of the way. Anyone affected can call the Australian government emergency information line on 1802266, and they can complete a claim simply over the phone with absolutely no paperwork to do. We will continue to do all that we can to assist the Queenslanders and Tasmanians affected, and the government will work hand in glove to assist these affected communities. Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. The SPEAKER 00APG Just before members leave, I'm going to quickly table some reports and then I'm going to make an important statement. So, out of courtesy, I wanted to let members know that before they left the chamber. DOCUMENTS 42 DOCUMENTS Commonwealth Ombudsman 42 Presentation 42 15:51 The SPEAKER 00APG I present four quarterly reports of the Commonwealth Ombudsman under section 712F(6) of the Fair Work Act 2009. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 42 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 15:51 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's corrigendum to report No. 8, and report Nos 16 to 25 for 2018-19. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. DOCUMENTS 42 DOCUMENTS Presentation 42 15:52 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. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 42 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 42 15:52 The SPEAKER 00APG As I said, I have an important statement I wish to make to the House for the information of honourable members and, as always, I ask that members listen to the statement I'm going to make and that they listen to it in its entirely. I have received correspondence from the Attorney-General, dated 10 February, and an attached opinion from the Solicitor-General, dated 7 February, relating to the Senate's amendments to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018. The Senate message relating to this bill is to be reported after the matter of public importance, which is why I'm giving this initial statement now, for reasons that will become obvious. I have determined that I will table the correspondence from the Attorney for the information of honourable members. When I table that correspondence at the conclusion of my statement, members will see that the Attorney-General in his letter to me states that the opinion he attached to his correspondence from the Solicitor-General is provided to me on a confidential basis, and, to quote the Attorney-General, 'I would appreciate you not circulating it further.' I have advised the Attorney-General that, as Speaker, it's important I ensure in this instance all material available to me is also available to all members of the House. As a consequence, I've also decided to table the Solicitor-General's opinion. Copies of the tabled documents will now be available on the end of the table. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 43 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry 43 15:54 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hotham proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure to implement the recommendations of the banking royal commission after voting against it 26 times. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:54 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham It's a great privilege to speak for the opposition on this matter of public importance this afternoon. It's good to have that opportunity, because it allows me to respond to what I found to be some whacky and bizarre rewritings of history from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer opposite me during question time. Is the Prime Minister actually expecting Australians to now thank him for calling a royal commission? This is a royal commission that he voted against 26 times. What we know from media reports is that the Prime Minister was the last bastion, protecting the big banks in cabinet, against calling a royal commission. He spent the last years of his life as Treasurer of this country trying hand over fist to give the big banks a $17 billion tax cut, and now he's constructed a parliamentary sitting calendar that means we can't do anything about the royal commission recommendations for eight months. Here we are, in question time, and we've got senior members of the Liberal Party, who did everything in their power to protect the big banks, telling us that now they deserve a golf clap because they were the ones who called a royal commission. That was after—you'll remember, Deputy Speaker Hogan—the banks asked the government to call a royal commission. There is a great deal more to say about the politics of this issue, but I want to open my remarks today by spending a couple of minutes talking about a group of people who have not got a lot of air time in this discussion about how to make banking more fair in Australia; that is, the victims of bank misconduct. Without these victims, there would never have been a royal commission in this country. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to people who were wronged terribly by the banks and to whistleblowers who observed appalling conduct within the banks and had the bravery to come forward. Some of these victims have had to go through terrible emotional turmoil as they've had to relive some of the most difficult times of their lives. We're talking about emotional turmoil, financial distress and, sometimes, family breakdown—even mental illnesses that have plagued them for the rest of their lives. I believe Australia owes a great debt of gratitude to those people. Ten thousand of them made submissions to the royal commission. They did so with great passion. I think we actually have a group of bank victims here with us today; there they are in the gallery. It'd be great for members of parliament to acknowledge those people there. Many of them have been fighting the big banks on disputes that have literally gone for decades. For some of the people who are up in the gallery right now, even though they were wronged by the banks, the banks have taken them to court and ended up bleeding them dry while they've sat through litigation after litigation. I have to say: we need to do a little bit more to hold the banks to account for the things that they've done. I want to particularly thank Michael, Selwyn, Craig, Bill, Rita, Caroline and Tony and the others who are gathered in the chamber today for their ongoing advocacy on behalf of all victims of bank misconduct. If I can say one thing more about this group that's gathered here: they represent a very active community of people right around the country who have been pushing for a long time for bank reform. One of the things I'm really struck by when I sit down with these victims is that they often acknowledge it's not possible to rewrite history, to go back to the beginning of their case and to fix all of the bad things that happened to them. Their concern is about the future and thinking about other people who might need help too. Every time we have a bank victim round table, people talk to me about other people who have got it worse than them. I'm really touched by the attitude that they have. It's stories like Rainer's that really drove home to me how important it is that we tackle misconduct and reform the culture in our banks. I want to tell you about this gentleman, who lives in my hometown of Melbourne. This is a fellow whose wife was diagnosed with cancer just after the birth of their second child. He went through genuine hell dealing with the Commonwealth Bank due to inadequate hardship policies. It included having to go back to work during the last months of his wife's life—there was no financial benefit in that for the bank, but that was what he was forced to do. It included the bank continuously calling his dying wife to talk to her about debts that she supposedly owed the bank. Other victims I've met with, like Paul and Liz Furneaux and Giulia Mandarino, have lost everything in their disputes with the banks. Some of them have lost homes. They still feel the physical and mental impacts of what has happened. I do want to pay tribute to those victims and say that we haven't forgotten about them. There is more that needs to be done to assist them and their cases, and we are so genuinely committed to this task of making sure that we do have a fairer banking situation in this country. That was a big impetus for why Labor fought so long and so hard for a royal commission. Deputy Speaker Hogan, you would have seen that for almost 600 days we pushed in this chamber for those on the other side of the chamber to see what we saw—that is, that we had a banking system that was treating some Australians appallingly. They were doing it in a way that was sometimes breaking the law and there seemed to be no accountability. What we saw on the other side of the chamber was incredibly disappointing, and it continues to disappoint me today. As a politician, I don't like to dwell on the past and I don't like to stand in this chamber and point the finger and yell at the other side about all the things that they've done wrong, but it does bother me and it does make me worry about the willingness of those on the other side of the chamber to actually have the grit to do what is in the royal commission's recommendations. I just don't trust them to do it—that's the genuine truth. They have a terrible record when it comes to cracking down on bank misconduct. When Labor was in government, you might know that we introduced the Future of Financial Advice reforms. Indeed, the royal commission went to some lengths to talk about how incredibly important those laws, those Labor reforms, were. The centrepiece of the Future of Financial Advice reforms was the introduction of a best-interest test for financial advisers. What the parliament was saying for the first time was that financial advisers have to act in the best interests of their clients. Well, it sounds pretty obvious now, doesn't it? But what we found is that those on the other side didn't want it. They didn't want it when it was first introduced by Labor, and when they first came to government they tried to get rid of the best-interest test. How is it that they can possibly be plausibly trusted to implement the royal commission's recommendations when that's their track record? But, of course, that's just the very beginning of their fight to protect the big banks and other people in the financial services industry. This government, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government didn't support the reforms. They fought all the way to stop them being implemented. Labor came out quite a long time ago in April 2016 saying that we thought it was time to have a royal commission into our banking sector. What did we see from the other side? We saw a Prime Minister and his Liberals huffing and puffing and, frankly, embarrassing themselves in a rush to declare what a bad idea this was. We had the Prime Minister call this a 'populist whinge' and a 'reckless distraction'. It is very important that we in this chamber and the Australian people never forget those words, because the truth is that, even though after 26 times of voting against a royal commission they were finally pushed into calling one, their attitude tells us everything we need to know about the willingness of the people opposite us to hold the banks to account. Every day that the government delayed, more Australians were being charged fees for no service, more Australians were being sold useless junk insurance and more Australians were being ripped off by the banks. In that whole time, that whole 600 days that we were calling for a royal commission and all of those Australians were being ripped off by financial service providers, what was the government doing? They were using every political opportunity they had to argue to give the banks a $17 billion tax cut. That is, the taxes that everyone at home watching pays, the taxes that I pay, were going to be taken and given to the big banks as a tax cut. That was their response to all of the community outrage about what the big banks were doing, and now we're being called into this chamber and lectured from the other side about things to do with the banking royal commission. It beggars belief. We just can't trust them on it. I want to cover a quick couple of matters, because I focused quite a bit on what happened before the royal commission reported, but now we have a royal commission report. The smart thing for a political party to do is to say, 'Yes, we're really in this fight and we're going to accept the recommendations and we're going to move forward.' But what we've had from the government is the exact opposite. We've had them use every little sneaky trick there is, even straight out of the blocks, to say: 'No, we're not going to do this; we're going to do it a little bit differently. We're going to do it this way and that way.' It just shows again that they can't be trusted. With my remaining few seconds I want to mention one more thing: the part-time parliament. We had the opportunity to implement a lot of the recommendations in this report, but, of course, not all of them, because some of them do require a lengthy consultation process and some sober thinking time, but some of them are completely straightforward. In fact, the government claimed we can't implement any of them and then in the same breath told us that they are implementing some of them in the Senate. It's intellectually incoherent. It's completely ridiculous. What we say to those on the other side is: if you really think that we should believe that you've changed your mind, call an extra fortnight of sittings of this parliament so we can come here, do our jobs and pass the necessary reforms so those bank victims sitting up in the gallery aren't back here in a few years time complaining that nothing much has changed. 15:24 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I acknowledge the banking victims in the gallery. My early life was defined by being a victim of one of the big four when my family, in the very early eighties, was encouraged to borrow overseas in unhedged Swiss francs and of course, when the spread increased, our family lost everything. We ended up settling with the bank literally on the top stair of the courthouse. Wacka Williams, my colleague in the Senate, was bankrupted by the same thing. So your pain is well felt. My young life was defined by this. So, as a government, we are not blind to what you've been through. I am not blind to what you've been through. The conduct of the financial institutions that should have known better was deplorable. They have let Australians down for decades. Go and have a beer with Wacka Williams in the Senate to get his view of some of the conduct of banks. After the post-GFC banking inquiries 10 years ago, Wacka and I worked with the then Labor government of the day on looking at reforms to this. In fact, the parliamentary inquiry into financial services, the Ripoll inquiry, had, I think, 11 recommendations on which we on the committee agreed with the government of the day, because it was that important. So my message to you as Assistant Treasurer is: we hear your pain, we understand it, and we are committed to doing something about it. Yes, there are politics of the day, and I understand that, but please, from me, don't underestimate our sense of compassion and what we want to do to try to help you. It was a bruising royal commission: 68 days and 130 witnesses. I gather many of you were witnesses. Many of you were not able to be witnesses, but Hayne has given his assurance—and I think he is a fair man of integrity—that everyone's story was read and heard and listened to, and the report is comprehensive. It was a forensic inquiry into our financial system. The opposition has made it clear, through the shadow minister opposite, that Labor will implement all 76 recommendations, and the government has made it clear that we will act on all 76 recommendations. There is no question—you heard, and there is no question—that the government of the day, this government, will act, and we are seeking to act as quickly as possible. But it's important to also understand that we have acted. We haven't sat by as the commission unfolded. We recognised many of the faults that needed to be fixed. I was quite visceral on many of the faults that I wanted fixed. So we've been acting, and some of the things this government has done are impressive. They would have helped me out. It's important, I think, that we understand some of the key things that we have done as a government, because we haven't been flat-footed. This is not a government that doesn't care. I understand the politics of trying to frame it like that, but nothing could be further from the truth. Go and spend some time with Wacka Williams. Speak to a senator sold up by a bank, bankrupted and tossed from his land, and you will hear the heartbeat of a bloke who does care, as do I and as does the human services minister next to me, who oversees Centrelink and sees the pain of hundreds of thousands of Australians who use those services and move through it. It's why we moved to act on the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. It's why we've been working with Helen Coonan, the chair, for a scheme of last resort. We were working on it for months with Helen prior to the royal commission announcing. We're looking to better protect consumers. We've already banned excessive credit card surcharges. We've simplified calculation of credit card interest. We've banned unsolicited offers of credit card limit increases. We've established the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, which is a serious regime for banking executives so that they can't say to my family or to yours that borrowing overseas is secure when it's unhedged and can't sell you a product with guarantees that don't exist. But, if those things happen, there are penalties that involve jail time for executives. We've established the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority. We've appointed second deputy commissioners to ASIC and APRA. We've required of administrators that significant financial benchmarks, including the bank bill swap rate, be licensed. We've made manipulations of any financial benchmarks a criminal and civil offence. We've increased APRA's powers over non-bank lenders and increased APRA's powers in the event of crisis. We've introduced industry funding for ASIC. We've removed ASIC employees from the Public Service Act so that they can employ the best possible people they need. We're now in the process of enhancing ASIC's ability to ban individuals and strengthening their ability to refuse and cancel licences. We're boosting criminal and civil penalties for misconduct, in some cases by 10 times 1,000 per cent. We're strengthening whistleblower protection, and this week we'll be introducing from the Senate the whistleblower regime—literally a world first in this space—and I'll be bringing forward on Thursday a raft of legislation concerning director identification numbers and combining 35 registers of business information into one to get greater transparency on this issue of who directors are, what they are doing and where they are going. We've strengthened regulation of super funds, and there's more to do in the Senate. We're lifting governance standards for super funds. We're seeking to reunite people with their lost super accounts—and there's a lot of lost super; I'm talking billions and billions and billions of lost super that needs to be reunited with people. We're banning exit fees on super accounts, capping fees on low-balance superannuation accounts and extending unfair contract term protections for insurance. We're removing restrictions on choice of super funds, improving explanations of insurance products and imposing design and distribution obligations on financial products so that products cannot be sold to individuals like you and me that are not appropriate for us. To stop that poor advice, we're empowering ASIC to modify or ban harmful financial products. These are things that we've already been doing. There's nothing new here. I haven't even got to us acting on the 76 recommendations of the royal commission. This is everything we've been doing to sort out some of this financial mess, because we care and we get it—we do. It's important to us. The action we're now taking on those 76 recommendations is substantial. In terms of the scheme of last resort with AFCA, that will go back 10 years, consistent with the period examined by the royal commission. We're compensating those individuals who have prior unpaid determinations in their favour by the predecessor bodies of AFCA, which will see almost 300 consumers finally receiving compensation totalling around $30 million as a consequence of prior misconduct. We'll extend the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to cover corporate criminal misconduct, which will expedite cases that are considered by state courts and commonly take over two years to be heard. We're commencing a capability review of APRA, which will be led by Graeme Samuel AC, and conducting further capability reviews every four years. Commissioner Hayne's recommendations and the government's response advance consumers in four key ways. They will strengthen and expand protections for consumers, small business and rural and remote communities. They will raise accountability in governance standards that are fundamental to ensuring that we as consumers get the advice we need. They will enhance the effectiveness of regulators and provide for remedies for those harmed by misconduct. The government gets it. We've heard the voices of those who have been affected. We have sought to act over the past few years in terms of progressively working to ensure a far better financial system. Do not be disavowed that this government does not hear you—it does; we get it. We get it personally, we get it collectively, and as a government we always have. 16:14 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Last December I was contacted by the parents of a young man in my electorate who was given a $40,000 loan by one of the big four banks. At the time, he was sleeping in his car. He had precarious employment. According to his parents, 'his understanding of finance and law was minimal'. He now finds himself hounded by a debt agency for that $40,000. The royal commission has revealed rorts, rip-offs and rigging: insurance sold to a man with Down syndrome, Indigenous Australians targeted for products they didn't need, fees for no service and dozens of criminal referrals. This was the report the Liberals never wanted us to see. Asked whether he'd call a royal commission, the Prime Minister described it as 'hollow, populist nonsense'. He said it would be a 'QC's complaints desk', a 'populist whinge' and a 'reckless distraction'. He said, instead: … we have a tough cop on the beat in that area—it is called ASIC. We have a strong regulator—it is called APRA. What did the royal commission make of arguments like that? The Prime Minister said 'the banking sector is incredibly strong', another observation sadly at odds with the conclusions of Commissioner Hayne. It's no surprise that the Liberals fought so hard against the royal commission, given their track record, given their history. This is the party of Garfield Barwick. It is the party of the bottom-of-the-harbour schemes. The Liberals are the party that voted against Labor's Future of Financial Advice reforms in 2012, with Prime Minister Morrison calling them 'corner-cutting and heavy-handed regulation' that would 'tie businesses and consumers up in red tape'. This is the party that in 2014 tried to water down the Future of Financial Advice reforms by removing the duty of financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients. They wanted to remove the opt-in requirement. They wanted to allow conflicted remuneration. And you just have to look at their background. The member for Higgins, Senator Hume and Senator Sinodinos worked for the National Australia Bank before coming here. The Treasurer worked for Deutsche Bank. And in New South Wales they've just preselected for the Senate Andrew Bragg, a former Commonwealth Bank staffer. It is no coincidence that the members for Goldstein, Fadden and Moore are currently embroiled in fundraising scandals involving finance. It is no wonder that Kenneth Hayne couldn't crack a smile for the cameras when handing the report to the Treasurer. Previously, we thought the Treasurer's most awkward moment came when he held a press conference with Jay Weatherill, but I think this one went just one better. As Bernard Keane wrote in Crikey: For most of the last decade, the relations between the Liberals and the financial services sector have been beyond the ordinary relationship between business, which understandably favour more business-aligned parties, and politicians. The ties of money, personnel and aligned interest are deep and rich. You see, now, the Liberals failing to implement the Hayne report in full. Labor, by contrast, will implement the Hayne report in full. We will do so because we have a strong track record of reform. In the teeth of the global financial crisis, over the objections of the Liberals, we banned mortgage exit fees. We encouraged competition in the banking market. In 2016 we announced our commitment to amend the Corporations Act, to encourage better access to finance for member owned firms. In 2017 the coalition said that they would follow suit. But they've done nothing. I come back, again, to the victims of banking scandals in Australia—victims like David Harris, who had the Commonwealth Bank feed his gambling addiction, despite the fact that he said: I explained that clearly I'm a gambler. I have a gambling problem. … I can't understand why they kept offering me more money. Scandals like NAB staff accepting cash-stuffed envelopes in bribes, scandals like when Nalini Thiruvangadam sold her jewellery to pay a lemon loan and scandals like dole recipients who were flogged junk insurance. You can't trust the Liberals. They never wanted the Future of Financial Advice reforms, they never wanted the royal commission and they will always fight against anything that disturbs their cosy relationship with the finance sector in Australia. 16:19 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne The banking royal commission has exposed a lot of very poor and bad behaviour. There is no argument about that. But I just want to correct the record: I can't remember any previous 26 votes in this House blocking a royal commission. Do you know why, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell? Because only executive government can create a royal commission. Those we should be thanking are senator for Queensland Barry O'Sullivan; senator for New South Wales Wacka Williams; the member for Wide Bay, Llew O'Brien; and the member for Dawson, George Christensen, who actually put together a bill to put before the House for a commission of inquiry, which is a legal possibility through the House of Representatives. The former Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister, and the former Minister for Revenue and Financial Services have all admitted that they wished they had done something sooner. We have been arguing for this for a very long time, but, as the member for Fadden outlined, we had already taken substantial action. We created the Banking Executive Accountability Regime. We have got the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, and a whole host of other manoeuvres that the member for Fadden just outlined—on credit cards, on superannuation, on so many areas of financial services that need correction and betterment. The banking system seemed to be working fine for banks, but in so many instances it certainly wasn't working well for customers. Friends, family friends, and professional acquaintances who I've personally spent a lot of time with in my life have come out at the bad end of advice from financial institutions, including banks—whether it was Swiss loans, as outlined by the member for Fadden; or having their farm or asset sold off once there was any hint of risk, only to have the farm or the asset sold in a fire sale, with the people involved in that advice being ultimately the purchasers of it. We have done so much already. What about the other side? They're not immune. Previous governments have glossed over financial mismanagement and bad behaviour. Where was the other side when Opes Prime happened, or the Storm Financial crisis? They let that scourge through. Where was the member for Maribyrnong then? Where was the member for Lilley? They were in similar situations and they did nothing. But we received the recommendations from Commissioner Hayne, and the Treasurer put out the government response within a weekend. We are still waiting for a response from the opposition. They say in-principle support, but that is a very vague term. We want to know the specifics of what they are going to do. First of all, we are improving consumer outcomes. We're putting in place a best interests duty. We're banning trailing commissions and volume based bonuses. The Treasurer already said that in his speech. We are going to review, after three years, the implications of getting rid of trailing commissions, because what we don't want to do is get rid of the broking industry and have everyone relying solely on the banks for advice about loans. As I mentioned, the Banking Executive Accountability Regime is being extended to the insurance industry and superannuation. ASIC should have joint responsibility with APRA in this space, and they will have the main regulatory oversight. There will be a separate board to oversight APRA and ASIC to ensure they're actually doing their job. Trustees and directors of superannuation funds will be subject to civil penalties for breaches of their duties. There is a new system for disciplining financial advisers, with stronger industry reference-checking and greater reporting, and serious compliance concerns will go to ASIC. There's a new disciplinary body with which all advisers must be registered. We have given extra funds, $170 million, to ASIC and APRA, and we have appointed new commissioners and deputy commissioners. ASIC— (Time expired) 16:24 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert Those in the Morrison government should really be ashamed of their lack of action in assisting people who have been victims of very poor practices from the banks. This government has clearly put the interests of banks ahead of the victims and working Australians. Just like everyone else in Labor and across the country, I am sick and tired of having to drag LNP members to do what is right when it comes to the banks. I was disgusted that Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the LNP members voted 26 times against the banking royal commission. Has the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, or the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, apologised to the Australian public for voting against a banking royal commission? No, but clearly they should. I was disgusted when the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, and the LNP members voted to give the big banks a $17 billion tax handout whilst the banking royal commission was underway. I was sick and tired of having to fight the LNP Morrison government to extend the banking royal commission so as to allow the commission to travel to regional Queensland. The Morrison government ignored those calls and ignored regional Queenslanders. When I was first elected I was absolutely shocked at the number of people who came into my office with boxes full of paperwork, demonstrating how they had been victimised and had lost everything. I was sick and tired of having to fight for the banking royal commission report to be released. Finally, it has been, after all the rigmarole. After the constant dragging of Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the LNP to the table to do just what was right by the Australian people instead of their big-profit, best-friend bankers, we finally got the report. You would think that Australian workers, Australian families and, importantly, victims of the banks could rest easily because finally something could be done, but no. Instead, now Labor, the Australian workers, families and victims have to go through another fight with this government. We have to fight for the recommendations of the banking royal commission to be legislated. I am shocked and outraged. I am disgusted that those opposite are putting their banking friends ahead of the Australian public. The Morrison government have confirmed that they have no intention of legislating recommendations before the election. Let me tell LNP members how things work in the real world. If an ordinary worker decided to show up for only two weeks in four months, they would be sacked, so why do the LNP think that it's okay in this place to show up for two weeks in four months in 2019? Why does Prime Minister Morrison get to show up for only two weeks out of four months to do what he is paid by taxpayers to do—that is, govern? If a doctor received an important report that could prevent a disease from spreading, that doctor would be at work immediately. That very same day they would be reading the report and taking action to help their patients and to prevent the spread of the disease. Instead, we have an LNP government who don't want to hold their banking mates to account and who will not even put forward a piece of legislation to help out the victims of the banks. They would rather delay any action and delay any redress for the victims. The royal commission's damning report revealed a culture of greed in Australia's banks that led to shocking mistreatment of customers. It revealed unconscionable, corrupt and potentially criminal behaviour in the banking and financial services sector. As Commissioner Hayne said in his final report, 'The financial services industry is too important to the economy of the nation to allow what has happened in the past to continue or to happen again.' But the Morrison government is allowing this to continue and the potential victim list to grow by refusing to put forward legislation that supports all recommendations in the banking royal commission report. The Morrison government has failed to accept the recommendations of the royal commission, using weasel words to back out of at least 14 recommendations. I know that the longer this government takes to act on the findings, the longer the list of the findings they will back away from will get. Not only is the government not accepting the entire findings of the commission's report; the Morrison government is even voting in favour of banks regarding Labor's amendments to protect Australians. Just recently LNP members voted against Labor's amendments that would have seen greater penalties and longer jail sentences for dodgy bank executives. Even when Labor is trying to help victims, those opposite work for the banks and not for the Australian people. My message to the Prime Minister and LNP members is really quite simple: if you can't even be bothered to show up for work and to act in the best interests of the Australian people, then call an election—and call it now—and allow the Labor Party, a party for the people, to govern this great country. (Time expired) 16:29 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde As somebody who spent a long time in the banking and financial services sector before coming into this place, I have to say that the revelations of the royal commission are very disappointing and disheartening. To see that the profession of banking has stooped to levels that it has is, indeed, a disappointment. I hope that, out of this royal commission, the banking industry takes a good, hard look at the decisions it's made and the things it has done to ensure that what we've seen illuminated through the royal commission process is not repeated. As I reflect on the many former colleagues who are no longer in the banking industry and the discussions that I've had with some of them, we all agree on one thing: the notion of banking built on relationships with customers that we started with in the banks in the early eighties is today, to all intents and purposes, dead. We see instead a banking sector that, sadly, is no longer run by professional bankers who have an interest in their customers' welfare and the longevity of those relationships. We see a banking industry populated by managers with professional degrees and educational experience who have never, ever worked on the shop floor in the branch. The days of a branch manager being able to meet with their clients, discuss their needs and come up with an appropriate solution for their circumstances and work with them through difficult times doesn't appear to exist anymore. That's an enormous indictment on the banking industry today, and I think that has been well and truly shown in the report from the royal commission and the evidence that was provided to the royal commission through nearly 10,000 submissions. But, as has been touched on by a number of my colleagues in their previous contributions, it's important to reflect on what this government has been doing to ensure that the things that are occurring in the banking sector, which we know are impacting on outcomes for consumers, are being addressed sooner rather than later. It's important to note that even the Law Council of Australia came out the other day and made the very important point that we have to go through a process of ensuring that the legislation we need in order to implement the recommendations is properly considered and properly done. Things are being done and have been done. We've created, I think importantly, AFCA, the one-stop shop for financial complaints. The member for Herbert in her contribution touched on those who have unresolved issues with the banks. We've made it clear that we've given AFCA the ability to go back 10 years—the time frame that the royal commission went back through—to consider claims by those who believe they have been wronged by the banks and to have their cases heard. I think that's critically important. The other important thing is that AFCA now has the ability to make binding decisions on the parties involved. We have also seen the removal of excess credit card charges, simplified calculation of credit interest and, importantly, I think, the ban on unsolicited offers on credit card increases. There a range of other issues which I think are incredibly important, given the context I painted before about the banking industry being populated by managers and professionals, not bankers, including the Banking Executive Accountability Regime. The regime seeks to ensure that we hold the executives of the banks accountable for the decisions they make. Far too often we have seen executives and senior officers of companies that have done the wrong thing escape sanction or punishment. We also know that the royal commissioner has made recommendations to ASIC on a range of matters, and I think it's incredibly important that we see those go through to fruition. It is important, too, to ensure that we have the proper standards in the financial advice sector. So we are taking action, and we will continue to do so. (Time expired) 16:35 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman This afternoon I'd like to tell the House a tale of two royal commissions. Both of these royal commissions illustrate woeful behaviour with respect to the government and how they respond to pleas and situations from the community that they were elected to govern. Some years back, the government launched the multimillion dollar witch-hunt that was the trade union royal commission. They salivated at the prospect of casting a bad light on the character of the Leader of the Opposition and a former Prime Minister, which they could not do because there was not a case to be had. They jumped up and down with glee at the prospect of dragging the wonderful trade union movement through the mud, wrecking the reputation of tens of thousands of wonderful men and women who work tirelessly for the benefit of their union members, for justice and for a fair go. Again it amounted to virtually nothing, other than the commissioner being asked to recuse himself because of his links to the Liberal Party. I'm proud to say that since then the trade union movement has grown from strength to strength. The coalition don't care about a fair go. They don't like organisations that fight for pay rises for low-paid workers, for safety regulations on work sites, for decent superannuation, for paid domestic violence leave or parental leave and for penalty rates, and against exploitation of workers, wage theft, casualisation and insecure work, because they only care about bigger profits for their big business mates and protecting their bad, unethical, hurtful practices. That brings me to the second royal commission I'd like to talk about today, the banking royal commission. This time there was no salivating. There was no jumping up at the prospect of the outcomes. There was knuckle biting and there was gnashing of teeth. This time they had to be dragged there kicking and screaming because this time it was their mates in the firing line, the big banks. They voted dozens of times against it. Notwithstanding some of the heartfelt comments made today by a couple of members opposite, there's no denying that they had to be dragged here kicking and screaming. They didn't listen to the desperate pleas of the people in whose interests they were elected to govern and who were victims of the unethical behaviour of the banks. This time it was only done when their friends pretty much dictated to them the terms of the royal commission. It was the banks themselves that forced them here. Australians will not forget this. We on this side supported the banking royal commission. We demanded it. We wanted it to happen because we knew it wasn't a witch-hunt or a ramped-up political stunt. This was necessary. Everyday people were fed up with the greed, excesses and arrogance of the big banks and were hurting from the mistreatment, unethical practices and, as we now know, potentially downright criminal actions of the banks. Australians had had enough. We've known for a long time about the excesses of the banks. Calls for a royal commission into the culture of banking are not new. As far back as 1935, in the wake of the devastating Depression, a royal commission was called by then Prime Minister Lyons. One modest member of the commission was JB Chifley, a great Labor man, who entered a six-page dissenting report scathing of the banks. He concluded that they could not be trusted and that only nationalising the banks would cure them of all ills. There's no call for that today, and I'm not suggesting that occur, but it is very sad that it seems very little has happened since 1935 to rein in the banks. We have a scathing report today, however, by the commissioner—a damning indictment on the behaviour of the banks and a litany of devastating stories of people's lives being badly affected to the point of destruction. The government responds with a promise to take action. Take action? What sort of action? Will it be positive action or negative action? Will it fix it or make it worse? We know that they will scale back or reject at least a dozen of the royal commission recommendations. We know they cannot be trusted to respond fully to this report and this commission. You compare that with their response to the trade union royal commission where barely nothing of substance eventuated, where the Director of Public Prosecutions was embarrassed into withdrawing charges that had no substance against good people, like John Lomax, who had their reputations completely sullied when all charges had to be withdrawn because the case fell apart. You compare that with the banking royal commission. This wasn't a sham like the trade union royal commission; this was real. Real stories, real tragedies, real people and real need for change. Labor will act on the royal commission. We will make sure we legislate change and we will make sure we make a difference for everyday people's lives. 16:40 Mr JOYCE E5D New England The first thing I'd like to say is that when I didn't support a banking royal commission I got it wrong. There is no doubt about that. I believed that the structure we had was able to deal with some of the issues that were brought up, so I freely admit that. I also must admit that the Labor Party claiming responsibility for something that was actually started by Senator John 'Wacka' Williams, Llew O'Brien and Barry O'Sullivan is too cute by half. If you want to celebrate being second coming to the cause of the banking royal commission, go right ahead but don't run us a yarn that you were first. The reason I have better knowledge than most of the banks is I have worked for one for five years and I'm an accountant. I remember one substantial client of the banks whose interest rates were at 40 per cent. I thought this was completely outrageous. There is a reason why we have to have some sense of temperance in this. We have to make the appropriate changes but we can't ride roughshod over every broker. I think brokers have played a substantial role in spreading the customer base away from the four major banks and into minor banks. If we lose sight of that, we are actually going to reduce competition. I believe that might have been one of the reasons where, after the banking royal commission was brought down, the more observant realised that the price of the major banks should go up, because they could see a reduction in competition. That's certainly something we didn't want and we certainly did see a rise in share prices of the major banks after the royal commission came down. Another issue that I find perplexing about the latest position is that they talk about the egregious and overarching position of the major banks. Sure, you are entitled to that opinion but in the next breath you vote against limited divestiture powers for the major power companies. Why do you do that? Why do you believe market strength in one area is an evil thing and then market strength in another area is apparently a moral good? Why do you vote against limited divesture powers in trying to look after people in that other crucial part of their life which is power prices? Might I suggest that there is an unnatural link, a close association between big unions and big business, because that's where the majority of union fees come from. When we take decisive action to properly put the sword of Damocles to affect behaviour, the Labor Party votes against it. Without a shadow of a doubt, being completely honest, if you want something that really surpasses all others in getting people's attention when the government speaks to them about changing their behaviour, then it's a divestiture power, as we see with the Clayton act and the Sherman Act in the United States of America, with the Enterprise Act in the UK and with the consumer act in Canada—all general divestiture powers. But somehow we believe that the Australian economy is so substantially different to everywhere else in the Western world that we don't need them. So, even when we vote for a minor one, you vote against it. The member for Hotham on Patricia Karvelas's drive program said that the Labor Party's position is in-principle support. What does that mean? In principle, I don't believe I should break into a house. In principle, I don't believe that you should steal someone's lunch. There are a lot of things in principle, but you still haven't arrived at a decisive position. You are hiding yourself in these weasel words. People are going to call you out for it. They will call you out, because it shows that you are trying to ride on both sides of the fence and that can be an incredibly uncomfortable experience. If you believe, in principle, that people shouldn't be ripped off, then how can you be so decisive about coming into their superannuation and taking their franking credits? I can tell you, that is biting out there; people do not like it. And if you in principle believe in all the recommendations of the banking royal commission, then why don't you in fact believe them? And might I say, you should temper your views, because if you go into this without further thought, you'll hurt others. Whilst you're at it, if you in principle believe in all the recommendations of the banking royal commission, then why don't you in fact remember that taking away negative gearing will reduce that other vital component of what people want: equity in their house? 16:45 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons A 'populist whinge', a 'reckless distraction', a 'QC complaints desk'—these are the words of the Prime Minister, who, as Treasurer under Malcolm Turnbull, arrogantly rejected Labor's call for a royal commission into the banks. What we also now know, thanks to the leaks pouring enthusiastically from the cabinet, is that the now Prime Minister was the last man standing in the Turnbull cabinet, desperately holding out against a royal commission when those around him had realised that the jig was up. It was not until the banks themselves begged the government to establish a royal commission, because they'd rather one be set up by those opposite than risk the terms of reference being set up by a potential Labor government, that one was finally established. This was a royal commission that this Prime Minister voted 26 times to avoid. Every Australian knows that this is a royal commission that this Prime Minister moved heaven and earth to stop, and he will stand condemned throughout history for it. The royal commission received 10,323 submissions, many from people whose lives had been ruined. You can grin over there, but lives were ruined—suicides, breakdowns, houses and businesses lost, trust destroyed in institutions that once stood high in public regard. Some of the victims of the malfeasance by banks and financial institutions joined us in this chamber today. These are ordinary Australians whose only crime was to place their trust in people and institutions that did not deserve it. Despite the tight deadline imposed upon it, the royal commission exposed stories of avarice and wanton disregard for the law, and those opposite wanted to give it all a free pass. Those opposite voted 26 times not to hear these stories, not to expose these disgraceful examples of crime and greed. Many Tasmanians are familiar with the story of Michael and Dimity Hirst, farmers from my electorate, who lost everything eight years ago when ANZ left them destitute. Michael fought to keep his emotions in check when giving his testimony, while Dimity cried in the gallery. Like most Australians, they did not have the resources to fight the banks. The royal commission gave them the chance to tell their story in a forum that mattered. They've received apologies now, but it's all too late. No apology, no compensation makes up for the loss and the emotional trauma. What will help heal the wounds is to implement the recommendations of the royal commission—not in part, not at some time in the future, not with some mealy-mouthed excuses about why is not the right time. If this government can start and finish legislation to deal with strawberries in one day, then surely, if it is serious about implementing these recommendations, it would be drafting legislation today and agreeing to Labor's requests for more sitting days to get this done—not after the election but now, within weeks, not months. But this is a part-time Prime Minister, a man so desperate to cling to power and avoid losing a vote on the floor of this parliament that this place is sitting 10 days in five months. Imagine the howls of outrage from those opposite if any blue-collar worker tried that on: 'Sorry, boss; can I do 10 days in five months? That's fair enough, isn't it?' How quickly do you think they would be shown the door? Let's be clear. If this parliament sat its normal hours, the recommendations could be incorporated in legislation and it could be dealt with before the election. This is what Australians want and expect. Australians want real action, not loud and empty words from a Prime Minister who voted 26 times to avoid a banking royal commission. On this side, we know this Prime Minister and those opposite are dragging their heels on taking action because they are the best friends the banks ever had. They've consistently voted against Labor's attempts to clean up the banking and financial services sectors. They've always put the interests of bankers ahead of consumers. The government recently voted against Labor's amendments for greater penalties and longer jail time for dodgy bank executives. On this side, we haven't forgotten that before those opposite were dragged to this royal commission they wanted to give the big banks a $17 billion tax cut. It's time to put Australians first, the banks second. 16:50 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I thank the member for Lyons for that contribution, but, unfortunately, it was a very partisan contribution—often what you get from Labor members opposite. I really fear for this country because, when I look around at many people opposite, all they engage in is partisan politics. Everything they speak about and everything they do is to win a political point. It is not about what is best for the people they represent; it is about how it helps them, how it helps the people that support them. Government speakers have outlined what we've done since coming into government. It was rightly emphasised earlier by a government speaker that it was Liberal Party and National Party MPs and senators from Queensland who fought for the banking royal commission—fought for it tooth and nail. What did the Labor Party do in the six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government? Nothing. They weren't enthusiastic about a banking royal commission at all. This idea that somehow the government voted 26 times against it is a complete fallacy—absolute rubbish. As one of the members outlined earlier, it is the cabinet that recommends a royal commission be held, and the Governor-General takes it up. The fact is that we on this side of the House will proudly vote against the opposition when they are engaging in partisan politics and wanting to disrupt government business. They weren't so keen when the royal commission into trade union corruption was going on. Where were the speakers opposite then to implement it or to talk about the recommendations? They didn't want to know about it at all. We will be implementing many, many recommendations, and we've already done a lot to better protect consumers from misconduct. We've also done a lot to ensure executives are held to account for misconduct. We've increased competition to give consumers real choice. We certainly have done a lot. We will make sure that we follow and adopt the recommendations that the commissioner has put forward. In fact, we've actually got the government's response to the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry released right here. But what do we have from the opposition? Absolutely nothing at this stage. When I'm talking to constituents in my own electorate, I often talk to them about financial education. It might be students; it might be young people that have just married or bought their first home. I'll talk to them about superannuation—about understanding it and, if they're employees, making sure that, just like they check their wages are paid every week or fortnight or month, they also check their superannuation has been paid and that they check it every few months to see how it's growing and how it's being invested. I'll talk to them about understanding basic concepts like tax rates—that the first $18,200 that we earn in this country is tax-free. So the first $18,200 that I earn, that the Prime Minister earns and that the Leader of the Opposition earns is tax free. For those working in the gallery, the first $18,200 they earn is tax free. With the Labor Party's policy for around $200 billion in new taxes over 10 years, we see that the shadow Treasurer does not want to give $18,200 tax free to pensioners and to retirees. He wants to tax them at a rate of 30 per cent from day one. So it's all right for me to have $18,200 tax free, and it's all right for the people up there and you members opposite to have $18,200 tax free, but if you're a retiree and you receive your income from shares you can't have $18,200 tax free; you're going to be taxed at 30 per cent. And what does the shadow Treasurer say? 'They're quite entitled to vote against us.' Well, I'll be telling everyone in my electorate to make sure they do vote against them, and I'll be doing my very best in May to make sure that I hold my seat, because the risk of a Labor government to this country, with their partisan politics, is bad for everyone. Considering that, for the first time since John Howard, we'll be returning a surplus in May, we don't need a $200 billion tax grab from you, putting your hand deep into people's pockets. The SPEAKER 00APG The time for the matter of public importance has concluded. COMMITTEES 52 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Committee 52 Membership 52 16:55 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a message from the Senate—not the one people are focused on, I must say—informing the House that Senator Stoker has been appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 53 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Parliamentary Computing Network 53 16:56 The SPEAKER 00APG For the information of honourable members—I would ordinarily have done this at the start of question time today, but given it was busy I thought I'd wait until a convenient time, which I think is now—I will simply update members of the House on the Australian parliamentary computing network. As members would, of course, be aware, the Australian parliamentary computing network has recently been the subject of a security incident. As soon as the incident was identified, the Department of Parliamentary Services worked with the Australian Signals Directorate and its Cyber Security Centre to investigate and remediate the situation. As a consequence of this, the decision was taken late last week to implement a number of measures to protect both the network and its users. One specific measure was to reset all network user, administrator and system-level passwords. The reset occurred between the hours of 3 am and 6.30 am last Friday, 8 February. During this time, a range of other measures were also undertaken. I can assure the House this action was carried out as a standard security incident response procedure and a precautionary measure to protect user access and information. A conscious decision was made not to advise users in advance, as any communication may have flagged remediation activities to the offender and limited remediation effectiveness. The majority of APH users who attended work on the morning of last Friday, after logging on, were prompted to change their password. This then enabled users to resume normal work. The Department of Parliamentary Services ensured that additional resources were made available on the 2020 service desk during Friday, the weekend and leading up to this sitting period to manage the high volume of calls generated by the password reset. An email was sent to all network users at approximately 9.30 am on Friday advising of the password reset and why this was necessary to occur, understanding that users who had not performed a password reset would not receive this communication. For several years, the Australian Signals Directorate and its Cyber Security Centre have been working with DPS to improve security of the network. DPS has made substantial strides in strengthening cyberdefences, which have been effective in limiting the impact of this incident. While any intrusion to the network is extremely unfortunate, it's important to understand that methods used by malicious actors are constantly evolving and no network, including the parliamentary computing network, is ever considered 100 per cent secure. If there is an incident, best practice is possessing the capability to detect it and then remediate it quickly. The relevant agencies have assured the President of the Senate and me that DPS acted decisively and fully cooperated with their advice and that the handling of this incident represented best practice. That cooperation continues as DPS works with the experts of the Australian Signals Directorate to secure the system and its protected users. Importantly, I'd also like to specifically acknowledge the assistance and expertise of staff from the ASD's Cyber Security Centre, who have worked tirelessly alongside DPS to address and mitigate the impact of this incident. Members, I hope, will understand I'm not in a position to provide any further information regarding attribution of responsibility for this intrusion. It's also likely to be some time before the investigation into this incident is concluded. I will provide further relevant updates to members when appropriate. BILLS 53 BILLS Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 53

Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018

Consideration of Senate Message 53 17:01 The SPEAKER 00APG As I foreshadowed a little over an hour ago, in tabling correspondence from the Attorney-General and an opinion from the Solicitor-General, I'll make a statement in respect of this now. I wish to make a statement about the constitutional implications of the Senate's amendments to this bill. This statement follows the receipt by me of advice from the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General which, as I said, I tabled just prior to the matter of public importance coming on so that members would have the opportunity to read both the correspondence and the Solicitor-General's advice. In essence the advice to me is that the Senate's amendments increase a charge or burden on the people contrary to the requirements of section 53 of the Constitution. Further, I'm advised that those amendments do not comply with the requirement of section 56 of the Constitution; namely that a proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by a message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated. Thus the Senate's amendments should have been made to the House as requested amendments. Specifically the advice I have received is that the amendments, by creating a new Independent Health Advice Panel, would engage a standing appropriation in the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 in that a number of members of the panel would hold public offices for which the remuneration tribunal would need to determine remuneration. The remuneration would be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated for this purpose by a standing appropriation in the Remuneration Tribunal Act. The direct legal effect of the Senate's amendments thus would be to dictate an increase in expenditure under that existing appropriation. In terms of the test that the House has used, as referred to in House of Representatives Practice—what are the probable, expected or intended practical consequences of the proposed amendment?—the advice to me is that section 53 is engaged by the proposed amendments. In addition, as the Senate amendments would increase expenditure under a standing appropriation, the amendments would require a message to be reported from the Governor-General recommending an appropriation for them under section 56 of the Constitution. The advice from the Attorney-General also referred to the importance of the House adhering to the requirements of sections 53 and 56 as otherwise, to quote the Attorney-General: … the Senate would be given the power to dictate the expenditure of public revenue, with potentially crippling effects on public finances. This reflects the important constitutional principle of the financial initiative of the Crown which rests with the House of Representatives and executive government. Issues to do with section 53 of the Constitution have been matters of difference between the Houses since the early years of Federation. As it is generally recognised that the provisions of sections 53 and 56 are matters for the Houses themselves and may not be determined by the courts, the point has been made that this provides some flexibility. In considering the application of the third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution, the House Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs stated: … the Committee considers that the Houses do, in some ways, have more flexibility in approaching the interpretation and application of the third paragraph of section 53 than if it were a strictly legal question. In this respect, I note that the practice in relation to the creation of statutory offices and the reporting of messages under section 56 of the Constitution has at times varied. However, the committee also noted that it did not follow that the parliament should give the section any meaning it chose. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General have pointed to the direct link between an amendment proposed by the Senate and the engaging of additional expenditure under a standing appropriation in this particular case. It is a matter for the House as to how it wishes to proceed with the Senate's amendments. The matter for consideration is not so much one of the privileges and rights of the two houses, as one of the observance of the requirements of the Constitution concerning the appropriation of revenue. I will leave it in the hands of the House as to how it wishes to proceed. 17:06 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That: (1) the House endorse the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 493 transmitted by the Senate in relation to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018; and (2) that consideration of the Senate's amendments be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your statement. It's worth a little bit of background on this matter. The amendments that have been unconstitutionally transmitted to this House were passed by the Senate on 6 December 2018. Those amendments were circulated on the last day of sitting for that year. The amendment sheet circulated by the Greens is time stamped 11.02 am of that day. Those amendments were considered by the Senate and the bill was passed at 4.47 pm on the same day. Members opposite in Labor at the Senate level gave themselves less than six hours to consider the amendments and, astonishingly, Labor senators were in such a desperate race to bring the matter before this House that Labor even voted against getting advice. Labor and the Greens voted against a motion to refer the matter to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry. Labor senators voted against a motion to defer consideration of the bill to allow advice from the director-general of ASIO and the commissioner of the AFP to provide advice on the national security implications of these amendments. So it was the case that on 6 December last year, in less than six hours and rejecting a briefing from ASIO, 19 Labor senators voted 22 times for all the amendments to this bill now before the House. Of course, those amendments did not deal with minor or tangential issues. The three fundamental pillars of border security—temporary protection visas, boat turnbacks where they are safe to perform, and offshore processing—have been, and are still likely to be, the most critical national security issues of the last decade. The Labor Party supported the amendments 22 times against the warnings of this government to the effect that the amendments minimise the critical ministerial discretion to irrelevancy and so effectively and irrevocably weaken the central pillar of offshore processing and that that would reignite the people-smuggling trade. That was our government's position of principal. It remains our government's position of principal because that is what we are continually and consistently being advised by our security agencies. The Labor Party supported the amendments against our warnings and, astonishingly, in circumstances where Labor rejected a briefing from our security agencies. Now, after months of those warnings being repeated and repeated and repeated, Labor have finally accepted a briefing and advice from Australia's security agencies and today have withdrawn support for the very same amendments that they supported in December last year. The question begs: why did Labor rush headlong to support the amendments in the Senate? Why such incredible haste on such an issue when the results of getting it wrong can be, as we have learnt from bitter experience, so catastrophic, including the risk and actuality of people losing their lives? Why do this without the advice of our security agencies and against the words of so many warnings? The answer is that the opposition leader thought there was a short-term tactical advantage on the last day of parliament last year in trying—unsuccessfully, as it turned out—to force the government to a vote in this House on those amendments, a vote on amendments that we now know that the Leader of the Opposition himself acknowledges should not be supported and are not in the national interest, because he has withdrawn support for them. Labor's support for the amendments on 6 December 2018 and Labor's withdrawal of support for those same amendments today is all about the Leader of the Opposition. All Australians now have a critical, unfiltered line of sight into the character and qualities of someone who wants to be the Prime Minister and have permanent control over our national security. That line of sight into the opposition leader's political character shows nothing other than the core of a person who would take massive risks with national security for short-term, high-risk, speculative pointscoring. And now, with the Speaker's statement today, the Australian people are also aware that on 6 December last year the opposition leader was not only willing to trash national security for short-term political pointscoring but also willing—and may yet still be willing—to trash a critical constitutional convention and law in the process. The unarguable fact before this House is that the Senate amendments of the member for Wentworth increase expenditure from a standing appropriation. The amendments establish, as we are all aware, an independent health advice panel—what has become known as the doctors panel. Section 199B(1)(c) of the amendments requires the minister to appoint at least six other members to the doctors panel. Once appointed, those doctors hold public office. Those circumstances automatically engage the provisions of the Remuneration Tribunal Act. That will automatically result in the Consolidated Revenue Fund being appropriated for the purposes of paying those six appointed doctors. The amendments sent to this House would initiate a short, direct series of automatic and unavoidably occurring events that would result in an appropriation. This House is required to apply a very simple test: what are the probable, expected or intended practical consequences of those amendments transmitted? So here we have a very simple situation. The amendments would create an obligation on the part of the minister to appoint six doctors to the panel and an obligation on the part of the tribunal to determine to pay them. The doctors are entitled to be paid in accordance with the tribunal determination from consolidated revenue, which happens automatically by an appropriation for that purpose under the tribunal act, section 7(13). The connection between the amendments and the appropriations is not speculative; it's not uncertain. The chain of causation is not long or complicated. The amendments commence a short, direct series of automatic and unavoidably occurring events that result in an appropriation. As the Solicitor-General points out, not merely does this automatic path to appropriation clearly meet the applicable test of this House, being the probable, expected or intended consequences of those amendments; it even meets the Senate's own test. The amendments appropriate money, and that point is inarguable. The law here is also perfectly clear. The third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution provides that the Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people. Those words have always included an existing charge or burden that would be altered or enlivened by the provisions proposed in a bill. The High Court, in a completely analogous context, detailed in the matter of Pape v Commissioner of Taxation, held that a bill effects an appropriation notwithstanding that the bill itself does not contain an appropriation clause. But of course the reason the motion that I have just moved before this House today is so unbelievably important is that it is not the High Court that decides whether the House should abide by the Constitution in this instance. We, the parliament, bear that responsibility. I note Senator Di Natale, as he walked past some or other office, using his deep legal knowledge, said, 'Pass the bill and let the High Court decide.' Well, the undisputable fact is that under sections 53 and 56 of the Constitution this matter is not justiciable by the High Court. The responsibility for whether or not this House abides by the Constitution of Australia is our responsibility and ours alone. This decision is one that we will all need to look back on many years after it is made, because it is utterly critical. We must be all clear on this: the responsibility is ours. When deciding how to vote on this motion, it needs to be understood by every single member here, even those who might have very passionate views about the subject matter that is now before this House, that it has been the practice of this House since 1910 to treat the third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution as applying to a bill that, while it may not itself contain an appropriation, contains a Senate amendment that would increase expenditure from a standing appropriation in another act or bill. This 109-year-old principle was clearly and explicitly recognised by the House Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in 1995. It is not a technical question about some preferable process or what is convenient or inconvenient; it is about our parliament deciding whether or not to observe the clear requirements of the Constitution of this nation itself—constitutional requirements which concern the critical issue of the appropriation of revenue. Were the House to ignore the requirements of sections 53 and 56 of the Constitution and consider these amendments, the House would be giving the Senate the power to initiate the expenditure of public revenue, breaching the most essential principle of our Constitution. The power of control over public finances is the essential feature of responsible government, the government formed in the house that we sit in. Everything that we do here has a consequence. If you get border protection policy wrong, if you misjudge the consequences of policy changes on that terribly vexed issue—the bitter lesson that we thought everyone in this place had learnt is that you can cause untold damage by unwinding the effective border protection policies we have in place. The policies that we have in place today have stopped the deaths at sea, when over 1,200 men, women and children drowned. They have closed 19 detention centres. This government has removed all children from detention. There were over 8,000 children put into detention under the previous government. As a matter of policy principle we should not support these amendments because the risk of the practical, real-world consequences being manifest is enormous and can and would result in the loss of life. Perhaps even more important than voting against the motion on that policy principle is that if you vote against this motion you would be voting against 109 years of House of Representatives practice; you would be voting against maintaining the central feature of responsible government. The power to manage public finances is the prerogative of the government formed in the House and not the Senate. If you vote against this motion, you would be putting us as a parliament and every one of us as parliamentarians in contempt of the Australian Constitution, and you'd be doing it because it's convenient for you to do it. We know that the Leader of the Opposition is willing to risk restarting the people smuggling trade for tactical political pointscoring. The question now is this: is there any risk too high for the Leader of the Opposition to score a political point? Centuries of Westminster tradition hold that financial initiative lies with the government in this House. Voting against the motion trashes that principle. It is a rare day when you have to withdraw your support for motions which would have trashed successful government policy on border protection and, in the course of doing so, trash the Australian Constitution. Even if you have deeply held views about the issues with respect to these amendments, the fact is that the risk is too high. Voting against this motion is to ignore the Australian Constitution. No-one is going to sort this out for us afterwards. This doesn't get to the High Court. It doesn't get put to a judiciary. We make the decision whether or not to observe the clear terms of the very Constitution that puts us in this place, and this motion must be supported. 17:20 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words "(1) the House notes the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by message transmitted by the Senate in relation to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018; (2) the House, having regard to the fact that the public interest demands the early enactment of the legislation, refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of the Senate message; and (3) the amendments be considered immediately." Our moving of this is far from the drama we just heard from the Attorney-General about this being some constitutional disaster. Anyone who looks at page 859 of Practice will find an almost identical resolution moved under the Howard government—that constitutional radical, John Howard—because it is up to the House to determine whether or not it wants to assert its constitutional rights. That's clear in the advice. That's clear from the statements made by the Speaker. The House would be determining not to do so if this amendment is carried, as the Howard government did in November 1996. Mr Pyne interjecting— Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members will cease interjecting. Mr BURKE DYW The second issue that's referred to in the legal advice goes to the issue of whether or not, before this ultimately gets taken to the Governor-General, an appropriation would have to be made. For that reason, when we get to the next stage of the debate—and I'm referring to it simply because part of this amendment is that the amendments be considered immediately—the amendment that will later be used will contain these words: 'a person is not entitled to remuneration in respect to their position as a member of the panel'. In doing that, the two legal issues that have been raised will both be dealt with. Now, I must say: if the government was so determined that this was a constitutional principle, why do you think the letter from the Attorney-General to the Speaker carried the final sentence: 'I provide the advice on a confidential basis for a limited purpose of assisting you in the consideration of the Senate amendments and would appreciate you not circulating it further'? If the Attorney-General were confident of his arguments, he would never have put that in. But he deliberately thought he would play a game of gazumping everybody on the final day. It takes a special Attorney-General to be able to deliver a 15-minute speech on this issue and not once refer to whether or not people who are ill can get medical care, but it was not referred to once. I'm not going to delay the House a long time with this, but in the Attorney-General's speech he referred to the 1,200 people who drowned. I have to say that, whenever that figure is referred to, it should be added, every single time, that half of them drowned after the Liberal and National parties voted against the Malaysia outcome. The member for Warringah has made clear that that was an error, but today's Prime Minister still stands by a decision that may well have been able to save not just one or two lives but half the lives that were lost. At the Press Club, he made a comment, something like, 'Oh, you can't cut the number in half.' Well, we nearly did, and it will always hang over the members of the Liberal and National parties who chose to vote against an outcome not because they were outraged by it but because they knew it would work. They knew it would work; that was why. They wanted to keep the issue running all the way to the election. What is in front of us now allows us to make sure that, when people need medical care, the decisions around their medical care are made by people who are medically qualified. This legislation would not have been required were it not for the fact that those calling out, 'It happens now,' have taken case after case through the courts trying to prevent people from getting medical care. That's why we've got to this situation and so— Mr Dutton 00AKI Complete rubbish! Mr BURKE DYW 'Complete rubbish!' There's a refutation! You're doing really well there, Minister! What we have in front of us now is a resolution, an amendment, to what the government has moved that does not in any way defy the information provided to the House by the Speaker, that allows the House to assert its rights in the same way that the Howard government did in 1996. It also deals with the other issue with respect to the Governor-General and the appropriation through the amendment that will come shortly. Every legal issue raised by the Attorney-General has now been addressed. This all could have been done in an orderly way had the Attorney-General not been so determined to keep this secret to get the element of surprise. When the way to deal with this is already contained within House of Representatives Practice, it doesn't take long to basically copy a resolution from the Howard government. I urge the House today to vote for the amendment, to vote for the motion as amended and to then vote for the amendments which will be used, because the difference they will make is simple: if someone is unwell they will be able to get medical care. When were we ever told that part of protecting our borders, as they say, was making sure that people who are unwell stay that way? When were we told that that was a principle? When did it suddenly become a pillar of border protection that people who are unwell need to be denied medical care? The amendment will deliver nothing more than that. I urge the House to support the amendment and to support the subsequent amendments that would then be moved. 17:27 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne This is urgent. This can be dealt with now and it must be dealt with now, because people are sick and people are dying. One thing has become crystal clear, and it is made even clearer by the government's attempt to stop us even debating giving people the help they need, and that is you cannot trust this government to give people the help they need when they're sick. We have heard report after report that strikes at the heart of most of us on the crossbench and most people in this country. When you have 11- or 12-year-old girls threatening to kill themselves and setting themselves alight because they have been stuck in conditions to the point where they break, where you have people who have committed no crime—no crime whatsoever—being put into prisons and have them deteriorate on our watch, under our care, and get denied the medical treatment they so desperately need, it is clear that something needs to change and that something needs to change quickly. It will come as no surprise that I do not support the system of offshore detention. I do not support it. I have not supported it for some time, but I know that others do and I accept that others do. There are potentially others on the crossbench who do and there are others in this parliament who do, but whether you do or you don't, and whether you are a voter who supports or doesn't support offshore detention, no-one can argue with the very simple proposition that when there is someone who is sick, who is under our care, then they need to get the medical treatment they need, and we can make that happen by passing this amendment and dealing with this now. 17:29 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt What an extraordinary series of admissions by the Manager of Opposition Business in the House in his address. First of all, he admitted— 17:30 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the question be put.

The House divided. [17:34]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

75 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Banks, J Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL 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 74 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) Dutton, PC 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 Sudmalis, AE 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 agreed to.

17:39 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendments moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:41]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to.

17:42 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:44]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to

17:46 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the amendments be disagreed to. The government does not agree to the amendments that have been sent to us by the Senate. As the Attorney-General so eloquently pointed out in his speech about the other question that was before the chair, we should not be dealing with these amendments at all in the House of Representatives today. Before I was shut down by the Manager of Opposition Business, I was going to make the very valid point that, in his speech, he admitted the central gravamen of the Attorney-General's argument—that this bill makes an appropriation and therefore cannot be considered by the House of Representatives without giving up 109 years of parliamentary precedents. Why do we know that the Manager of Opposition Business has admitted the central tenet of the Attorney-General's argument? He seeks to amend this Senate amendment to make the doctors who would form the health panel voluntary, so he has admitted that therefore there must be remuneration in the original amendments from the Senate and it is therefore an appropriation bill, and that's why he seeks to amend it: to remove that appropriation. As the Attorney-General's central thesis was that the House of Representatives could not allow the Senate to make an appropriation, he has admitted the Attorney-General's argument, he has admitted that the Solicitor-General's advice is right and he has admitted that the Attorney-General's letter to the Speaker is correct. Therefore what the opposition and the crossbenchers have done today in their last series of votes is decide that they don't care about the Australian Constitution and they don't care about the Westminster traditions that form the basis of our Constitution and our parliamentary system. I would remind the House that the English fought a civil war over this matter. The civil war in England between King Charles I and the parliament was over the right of the parliament or the king to make the appropriation. The king tried to implement a ship tax, the parliament said that wasn't his right to do so and they fought a civil war over it, yet the Labor Party today, because of their sheer desperation to score political points, have convinced the crossbench that it is wiser to throw out 109 years of parliamentary precedents and to throw out the hundreds of years of tradition which have formed the basis of our Westminster system in order to make a cheap political point. It's bad enough that, to do so, Labor is prepared to weaken our border protection. By passing these Senate amendments, the Labor Party is prepared to put the people smugglers back in business, to put out the welcome mat to the people smugglers, to run the green light, if you like, for the people-smuggling trade. They're prepared to do all of that because they want to make cheap political points in the lead-up to an election. I'm very disappointed that the crossbenchers have acquiesced to allowing this debate to occur, because, for two very significant reasons, they'll be remembered, unfortunately, under parliamentary precedents. This will all become the way the parliament now practises. They'll be remembered for allowing the Senate to send us appropriations initiated in the wrong house, without a message from the Governor-General, just so that the Labor Party could make political points. Government members: Shame! Mr PYNE 9V5 It is a shameful act on the part of the Labor Party. As the Labor Party are the only other party that can form government in this country, they have a wider responsibility to act in the interests of the parliament, in the interests of our parliamentary system—the Westminster tradition, which is the foundation of it. They will rue establishing precedents like this. It doesn't really matter what the result of the next election is, at some stage in the future there'll be other hung parliaments where governments will not have a majority, and there'll be crossbenchers who are passionate about a particular issue. Labor might well be in power at that time, in some distant future, and they will rue the day that they established the precedent where the people's house, the house which forms the government, which has for hundreds of years been the only house that can appropriate money, has abrogated that responsibility to the Senate, which can never be the basis of a house that forms a government. 17:51 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "The Senate amendments be agreed to with the amendments as set out in the schedule circulated to honourable Members." The amendments read as follows— (1) Amendment (2), at the end of section 198C, add: Note: Any transitory person who is brought to Australia for a temporary purpose must be kept in immigration detention whilst in Australia. That immigration detention must continue until the time of removal from Australia or until the Minister determines that immigration detention is no longer required. (2) Amendment (2), subsection 198D(2), omit "Within 24 hours of", substitute "After". (3) Amendment (2), after subsection 198D(2), insert: (2A) The Minister must make a decision under subsection (2): (a) as soon as practicable after being notified; and (b) no later than 72 hours after being notified. (4) Amendment (2), omit subsection 198D(3), substitute: (3) The Minister must approve the person's transfer to Australia unless: (a) the Minister reasonably suspects that the transfer of the person to Australia would be prejudicial to security within the meaning of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act; or (b) the Minister knows that the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection 501(7) as in force at the commencement of this section) and the Minister reasonably believes the person would expose the Australian community to a serious risk of criminal conduct. (3A) Within 72 hours of the Minister being notified under subsection (1), ASIO should advise the Minister if the transfer of the person to Australia may be prejudicial to security within the meaning of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act) and if that threat cannot be mitigated. (5) Amendment (2), subsection 198D(5), omit the subsection, substitute: (5) If the Minister does not make a decision under subsection (2) within the time required by subsection (2A), the Minister is, at the end of the time, taken to have approved the person's transfer under subsection (2). (6) Amendment (2), omit subsection 198E(2), substitute: (2) A transitory person is a relevant transitory person if: (a) the person: (i) is in a regional processing country on the day this section commences; or (ii) is born in a regional processing country; and (b) in the opinion of a treating doctor for the person: (i) the person requires medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment; and (ii) the person is not receiving appropriate medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment in the regional processing country; and (iii) it is necessary to remove the person from a regional processing country for appropriate medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment. (7) Amendment (2), subsection 198E(3), omit "Within 24 hours of", substitute "After". (8) Amendment (2), after subsection 198E(3), insert: (3A) The Minister must make a decision under subsection (3): (a) as soon as practicable after being notified; and (b) no later than 72 hours after being notified. (9) Amendment (2), omit subsection 198E(4), substitute: (4) The Minister must approve the person's transfer to Australia unless: (a) the Minister reasonably believes that it is not necessary to remove the person from a regional processing country for appropriate medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment; or (b) the Minister reasonably suspects that the transfer of the person to Australia would be prejudicial to security within the meaning of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act; or (c) the Minister knows that the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection 501(7) as in force at the commencement of this section) and the Minister reasonably believes the person would expose the Australian community to a serious risk of criminal conduct. (4A) Within 72 hours of the Minister being notified under subsection (1), ASIO should advise the Minister if the transfer of the person to Australia may be prejudicial to security within the meaning of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act) and if that threat cannot be mitigated. (10) Amendment (2), omit subsection 198E(5), substitute: (5) If the Minister does not make a decision under subsection (3) within the time required by subsection (3A), the Minister is, at the end of the time, taken to have approved the person's transfer under subsection (3). (11) Amendment (2), subsection 198F(2), omit "Within 24 hours of", substitute "As soon as practicable, and no later than 72 hours, after". (12) Amendment (2), subsection 198F(4), omit "Within 24 hours of", substitute "After". (13) Amendment (2), after subsection 198F(4), insert: (4A) The Minister must make a decision under subsection (4): (a) as soon as practicable after being informed by the panel of its findings and recommendations; and (b) no later than 24 hours after being informed by the panel of its findings and recommendation. (14) Amendment (2), omit subsection 198F(5), substitute: (5) If the panel recommends that the person's transfer be approved, the Minister must approve the person's transfer to Australia unless: (a) the Minister reasonably suspects that the transfer of the person to Australia would be prejudicial to security within the meaning of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act; or (b) the Minister knows that the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection 501(7) as in force at the commencement of this section) and the Minister reasonably believes the person would expose the Australian community to a serious risk of criminal conduct. (15) Amendment (2), omit subsection 198F(6), substitute: (6) If the Minister does not make a decision under subsection (4) within the time required by subsection (4A), the Minister is, at the end of that time, taken to have approved the person's transfer under subsection (4). (16) Amendment (2), subsection 198G(2), omit "Within 24 hours of", substitute "After". (17) Amendment (2), after subsection 198G(2), insert: (2A) The Minister must make a decision under subsection (2): (a) as soon as practicable after being informed; and (b) no later than 72 hours after being informed. (18) Amendment (2), omit subsection 198G(3), substitute: (3) The Minister must approve the person's transfer to Australia unless: (a) the Minister reasonably suspects that the transfer of the person to Australia would be prejudicial to security within the meaning of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act; or (b) the Minister knows that the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection 501(7) as in force at the commencement of this section) and the Minister reasonably believes the person would expose the Australian community to a serious risk of criminal conduct. (3A) Within 72 hours of the Minister being informed under subsection (1), ASIO should advise the Minister if the transfer of the person to Australia may be prejudicial to security within the meaning of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act) and if that threat cannot be mitigated. (19) Amendment (2), section 198H, after "198E(4) (b)" insert "or (c)". (20) Amendment (2), at the end of section 199B, add: (4) A person is not entitled to remuneration in respect of their position as a member of the panel. Last week the Prime Minister said that this amended bill would be superfluous and to ignore it. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House? Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition referred to amendments that have been circulated to the House. I don't see any amendments that have been circulated to the House on the table, and therefore he can't proceed until they've been circulated. The SPEAKER 00APG I've ruled on this before. There need to be a reasonable number of amendments that are there being circulated. I can see the amendments being circulated. The Leader of the Opposition has four minutes, and I'm sure they'll be circulated in that time. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The Prime Minister said that this bill was superfluous and he would just simply ignore it. Today the government tells us that this bill is a constitutional crisis. The fact of the matter is: this bill is about providing treatment to sick people. I want to acknowledge to a number of members of the crossbench that the amendments that I'm moving are not everything that they wanted, but we are about getting something done. I thank the Speaker for tabling the advice and correspondence that he received from the Attorney-General. This motion accepts the amendments from the Senate and it seeks, firstly, to enhance the security requirements, broadening them to ensure that the minister can deny a transfer not just on national security grounds but also in the case of serious criminality, removing any doubt that the minister has the power to keep criminals out of Australia. Secondly, we are extending the time frame for the government to refuse a transfer, to ensure that agencies and medical professionals have enough time to consider complex cases, to have their advice heard and to ensure that the minister has enough time to make an informed decision. Thirdly, and perhaps arguably most importantly, our amendments will ensure that this legislation only applies to a fixed number of people who are already in regional processing. It is not prospective. It currently deals only with the people currently in Australia's care. What we are proposing replicates the conditions that the government placed on its own resettlement deal with the United States. It did not give the people smugglers a product to sell then, and what we are putting in place will do nothing to change that. In the same way, this legislation will continue the practice that, where people are transferred here for medical treatment, they will be put into held detention as a default, and it will remain the case that the only person who can approve their release into the community is the minister. This existing protection is already in place, and the legislation we're supporting keeps it in place. Fourthly, we have put beyond any doubt—we have made it explicit—that there will be no remuneration for the medical panel. The Australian people do not send us to parliament to run and hide from debates that we don't like, to manipulate procedure and the law to try and avoid democracy. We are elected to this place to solve problems, to find common ground where we can. This legislation does that. It gets the balance right. I believe that we can keep our borders secure, we can uphold national security, but still treat people humanely. We can have strong borders while still fulfilling our duty of care to the people in our care. In closing, I note, regarding the government's legal arguments on this medivac bill, that Practice describes different responses of the House to amendments made in the Senate—and the Solicitor General made clear in his advice that the ultimate arbiter of the operation of section 53 of the Constitution is the parliament—and on a number of occasions since 1994 the House has refrained from the determination of its constitutional rights, as we did today, in order to consider amendments from the Senate. Indeed, we refer to the precedent set by the Howard government. The government have referred, in debating why they think our proposal should be opposed, to character. In fact, this bill and our amendments are about Australia's character. It's about how we treat sick people in our care. The SPEAKER 00APG Is there a seconder for the amendment? 17:55 Dr PHELPS 008Z0 Wentworth I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this, the Leader of the Opposition has moved a number of amendments. If it suits the House, I'll state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to. 17:56 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Well, here we are again. How many elections, how many times have the people of Australia said, so clearly, that they want their borders secure? How many times have the Labor Party failed them on this issue? How many times do they have to learn the lesson, only to demonstrate they have never learned it? This is a day when the Labor Party have failed the test, and it's not the first time they've failed this test. They repeat the mistake of thinking they can fiddle and change, without consequences, border protection frameworks that are proven to work. Under our government, 19 detention centres have been closed. Under our government, 8,000 children who were put into detention by the Labor Party have been taken out. Under our government, every single child is off Nauru, with the last four on the way to the United States under the agreement that we put in place. Under our government, the 1,200 deaths at sea stopped. Under our government, the 800 boats and the 50,000 people came to an end because of a border protection framework that not only stopped this vile trade but provided people with care on the ground. We have more doctors and medical treatment people on Nauru per head of population than you will find in any part of this country today. I will not stand here and have it said that that treatment is not provided, because it is. I will not stand here and have this parliament give itself an excuse to weaken the border protection framework that has saved lives, has restored integrity to our immigration system and, in particular, has seen more than 7,000 women come here on our women at risk visa, under our restored Refugee and Humanitarian Program, which is solely the achievement of those who sit on this side of the House, not of those opposite, who, when they were in government, thought they could abolish temporary protection visas and it would have no impact. August 2008—I remember the date. That was when the vile trade opened and the deaths started. The bodies mounted up, week after week, month after month, and our border protection staff had to pull children out of the water. The Australian people cried out to us in 2013, and they said: 'Please fix it. Please fix it.' We did. We had a plan to fix it and we executed that plan, and it worked. And now the same wreckers who destroyed it last time have come into this place, whispered in the ears of those who sit on the crossbench and convinced them to undermine it all over again. There is no form of this bill that does not weaken our border protection—no form. We on the government side will not allow the parliament to delude itself, or the Labor Party to delude itself, that there is a form of this bill that is safe for border protection. There is not. There is not. They shake their heads—just as they shook them before, as they trounced around in government and destroyed the border protection framework put in by the Howard government. As they saw the people die and as they saw the detention centres open, they lamented it, and they came into this chamber and they cried and they wept. But they were impotent, and they were impotent because they did not know how to fix the problem. We know. We have. We did. We've implored this House not to undo what is not broken. The Labor Party broke the system, and we have fixed it, and now, even in opposition, they seek to break it again. Imagine what they will do in government if they are elected. Imagine what it means in government. The Labor Party can win as many votes in this House as they care to, but for the Australian people here tonight they are failing the test of mettle. They are failing the test of duty to the Australian people, and they do it trying to kid themselves that this is being done in the name of humanitarianism. Well, I remind them that their supposed humanitarianism last time led to child deaths, it led to the total destruction of our borders and it took the strength again of a coalition government to undo this. The people of Australia will remember this day and know that this is now on your head, Leader of the Opposition. 18:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion be put.

The House divided. [18:05]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to.

18:09 The SPEAKER 00APG The immediate question now is that the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

[The House divided. [18:09]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to.

The House divided. [18:11]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES 75 COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport 75 Report 75 18:13 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I present the committee's revised report on the Aged Care Amendment (Staffing Ratio Disclosure) Bill 2018, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 by leave—The advisory report on the Aged Care Amendment (Staffing Ratio Disclosure) Bill 2018 follows on from the detailed work the committee undertook in the area of aged care in its October 2018 report as part of its inquiry into the quality of care in residential aged care facilities in Australia. In recent times, instances of mistreatment have brought attention to the quality of care provided in residential aged-care facilities. The need to ensure that older Australians have access to high-quality residential care has prompted the committee to inquire into the conditions in Australian aged-care facilities. Our first report identified the types of serious concerns which have led to the government establishing a royal commission into the aged-care sector. I note that this report is being tabled a day after the proceedings of the commission commenced, and we look forward to the outcomes of its work. The committee recommends the passage of this bill, as its intention is to increase consumers' access to information about staffing in aged-care facilities. This aligns with the findings of the committee's aged-care inquiry report, which highlighted that the provision of an appropriate number of staff is a critical component of the delivery of quality aged care. In our first report, the committee noted that the number of registered nurses employed, for example, in the aged-care sector, has declined over the last 15 years, despite the increase in the number of aged-care residents and the acuity of their health needs. The committee, therefore, welcomes moves to increase transparency and assist consumers to make informed decisions regarding aged-care facilities. During the inquiry concerns were raised that the publication of staffing ratios without contextual information and other quality measures would not provide consumers with a reliable or useful tool to assess different facilities. The committee agrees contextual information should be developed by the Department of Health. Staffing ratios are not the sole determinant of the quality of aged-care services, and the profile and needs of aged-care centres will differ, in some cases markedly. However, this should not become a hindrance to greater transparency and more meaningful consumer information. Residents and their families deserve access to this type of information about facilities which will effectively become their home for the remainder of their lives. The committee reiterates that the publication of staffing ratios is not the only necessary improvement to the protections provided for older Australians living in aged-care facilities. The committee anticipates the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety will provide an opportunity to strengthen safeguards and enhance the quality of care provided to older Australians. There have been many recent inquiries into the aged-care sector, so I would particularly like to thank the organisations and individuals who provided evidence to this inquiry. The continued engagement of so many organisations and individuals highlights both the importance of this issue and the passion and commitment of those who seek to improve Australia's aged-care sector. Finally, I would like to thank my fellow committee members, including the member for Mayo, whose bill is the subject of this report and who joined the committee as a supplementary member for the course of the inquiry. I also record my thanks to the staff of the committee for their support and consideration of the bill. The committee system would struggle without the dedication and professionalism of the staff who work for it. I commend the report to the House. 18:17 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo by leave—I would like to speak very briefly to echo the comments of the member for North Sydney. It was very pleasing to see the advisory report in relation to the Aged Care Amendment (Staffing Ratio Disclosure) Bill 2018 recommend that it be passed subject to minor amendments that would strengthen the support and aim of the bill. That's the purpose of having committee work—to make sure that we improve draft legislation that we have before the House. One of the suggested amendments calls for separate categories for residential facilities based on resident acuity levels, which would mean that consumers would compare like with like, depending on the level of care required. The committee also proposed that a further review occur within 12 months to monitor both the administrative impact of the ratio reporting scheme and to question whether even more detailed information should be included. For example, it may be appropriate to expand the information to be reported to include staffing ratios on weekends and shifts. The suggested amendments will mean that consumers will be able to make a meaningful comparison between aged-care providers, and that has my full support. I'm open to working with both the government and the opposition—the whole of the parliament—and I'm looking forward to discussing this bill with the minister and shadow minister this fortnight. I accept that disclosure of staffing ratios, as referred to in the committee's report, is only a first step, and we have much to do to improve aged care for, as the member for North Sydney said, it will be people's last home in their lifetime. This is an important first step and one the community expects. I commend the work of the committee. I'm very grateful that I was allowed to join the committee for a short period of time. I would like to acknowledge the great work of the committee secretariat, including Stephanie Mikac, the secretary. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights 76 Report 76 18:20 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the reports Human rights scrutiny report: report 1 of 2019, and Annual report 2018. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 by leave—I rise to speak on the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report Human rights scrutiny report: report 1 of 2019 and the committee's Annual report 2018. The scrutiny report contains credible technical examination of legislation with Australia's obligations under international human rights law. A number of bills scheduled for debate this week have been considered by this committee in the current report, including in relation to Australian citizenship, electoral legislation and visa cancellation. Of the new bills examined in this report, 16 have been assessed as not raising human rights concerns as they promote, permissibly limit or do not engage human rights. The committee is also seeking further information in relation to human rights compatibility of a number of bills and instruments. Of these, a number engage the right for privacy, as they allow for collection of personal information. The report also contains the committee's concluded examination of four bills and instruments. I also speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Annual report 2018. This report covers the period from 1 January to 31 December 2018 and provides information about the work of the committee, including the major themes and scrutiny issues arising from the legislation examined by the committee. Major themes during the period range from human rights and technology, to human rights of vulnerable groups. The annual report details the significant volume of work the committee has undertaken during the reporting period. In this respect, the committee tabled 13 scrutiny reports examining a total of 238 bills and acts, and 1,850 legislative instruments. Of the bills considered in this period, the majority, 181, were initially assessed as promoting, permissibly limiting or not engaging human rights. The committee requested additional information in relation to 38 bills and 38 legislative instruments in the reporting period. The committee also provided 2019 advice-only comments to legislation proponents. I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's annual report to inform their considerations of the committee's work during the relevant period. With these comments, I commend the committee's reports Human rights scrutiny report: report 1 of 2019 and Annual report 2018 to the House. Intelligence and Security Committee 76 18:23 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning by leave—Today I rise to make a statement updating the House on the progress of the committee on intelligence and security's review of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018. The committee adopted this review on the 14 December, following its referral from the Senate in December last year. At the end of 2018, the committee agreed to expedite its consideration of the assistance and access bill. This was in response to government advice that the legislation was critical to assist agencies to address heightened national security concerns over the Christmas and New Year period. At this time, the committee was conducting a detailed review of the assistance and access bill referred to it by the Attorney-General in September last year. However, in recognition of the request for expedited consideration and the need to pass the bill before the House rose in December last year, the committee tabled a brief report recommending a series of amendments to respond to the most pressing issues raised during the 2018 review. The committee's advisory report on the assistance and access bill was tabled on 5 December 2018. It contained 17 recommendations for amendments or other action by government. Amendments to the bill were introduced and passed by the parliament on 6 December 2018, the final sitting day of last year. Unfortunately, the tight reporting time frame prevented the committee from clarifying the intent and objectives of its recommendations through its longstanding practice of detailed committee comments. It is within that context that I rise today to advise that the committee has unanimously agreed that two matters require amendment to the act now in force. In the committee's 2018 report the committee recommended that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor review the act within 18 months of the bill commencing. The committee notes that the amendments passed by the parliament in December provide for a statutory review of the act as soon as practicable. Whilst there are merits in conducting a statutory review beyond an 18-month period, an earlier timing of this review is preferable. The committee recommended that the commencement of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's review be within 18 months of the act's passage, to enable this expert legal advice to inform the committee's own review of the act to commence on 13 April. It is the view of the committee that an amendment is required to clarify the time frame for the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's review. Likewise, it is the committee's consensus view that the act's industry assistance powers in part 15 of the act be extended to Commonwealth and state anticorruption bodies. The exclusion of these bodies from the access and assistance act was recommended as an interim measure while the committee continued its consideration of the act. The committee recognises that these commissions have a central role in ensuring integrity and accountability within public administration. They investigate, expose and prevent corruption involving or affecting public authorities and public officials. They also educate public authorities, public officials and members of the public about corruption and its detrimental effects on public administration and on the community. Notwithstanding the importance of these bodies, the exercise of such intrusive powers must always be oversighted. The committee is therefore of the view that the Commonwealth Ombudsman should oversight the use of these powers by state bodies. Such an extension is parallel with the Ombudsman's oversight of the exercise of the act's powers by state and territory police forces. It is the committee's understanding that government amendments to effect these changes will be introduced to the Senate tomorrow. All members of the committee have worked through these matters with a commitment to bipartisanship on issues of national security and the work of the committee. This is very important legislation. It is necessary to keep Australians safe. I can inform the House these new laws have already assisted our law enforcement and national security agencies in their task of keeping Australians safe. The Australian Federal Police have informed the committee that the legislation has been significant in allowing them to address a number of emerging and urgent operational issues. One example provided by the AFP concerns an investigation, which has been able to be brought to resolution, into the suspected procurement and importation of illicit drugs with cryptocurrency via a dark web marketplace. Another example cited by the AFP concerns an investigation into the distribution and possession of electronic child exploitation material. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO, is also using these new laws to good effect, but for national security reasons I am unable to go into specific detail. I note with the House the concerns raised by some stakeholders in the tech sector about these laws, including in today's press. I welcome the ongoing contribution from these stakeholders as the committee continues its review. I note, however, that the legislation as passed prohibits the creation of so-called back doors. Companies cannot be required to create systemic weaknesses in their encrypted products or be required to build a decryption capability. Agencies also cannot use the provisions in this legislation to access personal information. Access to personal information must be authorised by existing warrants and authorisations, which are subject to their own safeguards. It is because of these inherent safeguards that the committee unanimously recommended that the assistance and access bill be passed in December. And it is because of these inherent safeguards that that Australian public and the telecommunications sector should have confidence that the legislation will not undermine their privacy and interests. I thank members of the committee for their commitment and their constructive participation in this ongoing review. It is our shared objective to deliver a final report by 3 April, as required by the Senate's referral. I note that the committee will continue to accept submissions until 22 February. I invite any interested stakeholders to share their views. I thank the House. 18:30 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs by leave—On the morning of 6 December 2018, the last parliamentary sitting day of 2018, the government introduced 173 amendments to the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 in response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's 17 recommendations, which had been delivered only a day earlier in the committee's report of 5 December. The government's amendments did not fully implement the committee's recommendations. Labor agreed to support the passage of the access bill and the government's 173 amendments on the condition that, first, the new laws be immediately referred to the committee for inquiry and report by 3 April 2019 and, second, that the government agree to facilitate consideration of Labor's proposed amendments that would have made the access bill conform to most of the committee's recommendations in the new year in government business time. On behalf of the government, Senator Mathias Cormann agreed to those conditions. As recorded in Hansard, Senator Cormann also said that the government supported in principle all amendments that are consistent with the committee's recommendations. Since then the government has tried to resile from that commitment. It is not tenable to argue, as the government continues to argue, that its amendments largely implemented the committee's 17 recommendations. No reasonable person accepts that. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, who has made a public submission to the committee, doesn't accept it. Industry doesn't accept it. Lawyers and other civil society groups don't accept it. The Commonwealth Ombudsman has even told the committee that the government's amendments are inconsistent with the Ombudsman's role as an independent and impartial office. This fiasco of law making is what a job well done looks like to this chaotic government. To make the legislation conform to the committee's recommendations we will be moving amendments to the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 when it is introduced into the Senate. The most fundamental of the committee's recommendations in its 5 December report were recommendations 9 and 10, both of which relate to the meaning of the term 'systemic weakness'. The access bill as originally introduced prohibited an agency from forcing a provider to implement any kind of 'systemic weakness' or 'systemic vulnerability' into a form of electronic protection. However, the committee heard a considerable amount of evidence from industry, digital rights groups, lawyers and technology experts that it was not clear what those terms actually meant. If left unclarified, many submitters were concerned that the systemic weakness or vulnerability limitation would not prevent an agency from requiring a provider do acts or things that would or could compromise the security of the critical systems or result in the personal information of innocent third parties being left vulnerable to hackers, including bank details, health records and private correspondence. We are not aware of any impacted companies, technical experts, non-government organisations or individuals who accept that the government's rushed amendments implemented the critical recommendations of the committee in relation to the meaning of 'systemic weakness' or 'systemic vulnerability'. In fact, there is broad agreement that, instead of clarifying the meaning of the term 'systemic weakness', the government's amendments have created additional confusion. Technology experts have gone as far as calling the government's amendments 'an abomination'. The amendments Labor introduced on the final sitting day of last year would have implemented recommendations 9 and 10 in full. Those amendments are supported by the major industry groups. The government's amendments are supported by no-one, other than the Morrison government and its incompetent Minister for Home Affairs. If Labor's proposed amendments are not acceptable, we think that the government must explain to the Australian technology industry and, more importantly, to the Australian people, precisely why it is opposing amendments that would make them safer and make this law operate as the Director-General of ASIO says it's intended to. Why would the government oppose amendments that make it clear that an agency may not require a provider to do anything that could, either knowingly or unknowingly, compromise the security of an innocent third-party's personal information? This amendment is not some minor, technical matter to be left in the too-hard basket by a government distracted by its internal chaos and focused on nothing but clinging to power. This amendment is necessary to help protect the personal information and, therefore, the security of virtually every Australian who has a smartphone or who uses the internet. We do not suggest that the full implementation of all of the committee's recommendations would address all of the concerns that have been expressed by stakeholders about the measures that were introduced by the access act. To the contrary, the reason why Labor insisted that the access act be referred to the committee for an immediate inquiry is that the committee did not have enough time to properly consider the access bill. Labor has a longstanding commitment to ensuring that our agencies have the powers they need to keep Australians safe while also ensuring that such powers are subject to strong and effective oversight and safeguards, and do not give rise to adverse unintended consequences. We believe that strong and effective oversight does not undermine our national security: it enhances it. Public trust and confidence in our security and intelligence agencies are best ensured through strong and rigorous oversight and scrutiny. In the context of this legislation, and consistent with our longstanding commitment to ensuring that significant powers are subject to appropriate safeguards and oversight, Labor believes that the new powers introduced by the access act should be subject to greater judicial oversight. As a matter of principle, Labor does not believe that the Attorney-General or a senior police officer should be given the power to compel an innocent person unconnected to an investigation to provide technical assistance to a government agency without a warrant, yet this is what the access act currently allows. While this week's debate is confined to implementing the committee's 17 recommendations, this is an issue that Labor is committed to addressing in the future. In addition, given the impacts that this legislation has already had on Australia's technology industry, Labor is committed to referring the measures introduced by this legislation to a parliamentary committee for inquiry and report on their economic impacts. It's vital that the economic impacts of this legislation are properly considered and, if necessary, amendments are made to reduce any unnecessary impact on Australian businesses. Standing Committee on Environment and Energy 79 Membership 79 18:37 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating a member to be a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Energy. 18:37 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland by leave—I move: That Dr Gillespie be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Energy. Question agreed to. BILLS 79 BILLS Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018 79

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018

Second Reading 79 18:38 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I am seeking to continue my remarks on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018. When I stopped my contribution at 1.30, I was referring to a range of matters which dealt with the fact that many constituents of mine—they are not constituents in a sense because they are not on the electoral roll, but many Aboriginal people who live in remote parts of this country, in this case in the seat of Lingiari, are not on the electoral roll and are being denied their rights as citizens to vote because they're not on the roll and they can't participate in our democracy. This is a deliberate decision which has been taken by this government to cut funding to the Australian Electoral Commission to deny them the opportunity to run education and enrolment campaigns that used to be available in remote communities across this country. This has one damning effect: it ensures the disenfranchisement of the poorest and most vulnerable people in this country. That's what it does. For whatever reason, this government has done it. You can only conclude that it's a deliberate act by this government to prevent people from being enrolled on the electoral roll, from being educated about their rights as citizens to vote and from being able to participate in elections at voting time. Not only does this affect people who want to vote in federal elections but it also has a direct impact on people who vote in Northern Territory elections, because there is a common roll, and the people who administer the roll and ensure people are enrolled are the Commonwealth. It seems to me that the facts are beyond dispute. Only 84 per cent of Territorians are enrolled to vote; 16 per cent are not, clearly. Across the country, more like 96 per cent are enrolled to vote. In the Northern Territory, 26,377 are not enrolled to vote—figures provided by the Australian Electoral Commission. I suspect it's higher than that, probably closer to 30,000. I have been arguing for some time that the population information the bureau's census collects, by its very nature, is a significant undercount and that the assumptions made by the Australian Electoral Commission are therefore wrong. I made these arguments in presentations over the redistribution which took place in the Northern Territory, where I was given the magnificent opportunity to include in my electorate a number of electors who wouldn't otherwise have been included. My argument is that, had they used the accurate data, the bounty would have gone the other way. We are seeing here a very deliberate exercise by the Commonwealth to ensure those people are not on the roll. If they're not on the roll, they can't be counted in the assessments of voters for redistribution purposes. I make the assumption that the vast majority of the 26,377 persons not on the roll are in the seat of Lingiari. These people, who should be voting in the election in the next few months, will not be able to vote, because they are not on the roll. This is all down to decisions taken by this government to deny them the vote. Shame on the government! 18:42 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Following on from the member for Lingiari, the longest-serving member of this House, is always difficult, because I've learnt from listening to him over the years that he always speaks with conviction, with passion and without notes. As a newer member of parliament, I'm always a little intimidated but honoured to follow in his footsteps. As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I concur: exactly what he is saying is true. The penny-pinching cuts we have seen when it comes to funding the Australian Electoral Commission shows to me that this falling-apart LNP government does not take democracy seriously. I will come to that in a little while but I want to start by talking about the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018. I joined the standing committee to ensure that our democracy was open, transparent and inclusive. All members of parliament have a duty to uphold this trust in democracy and in our parliament in carrying out our duties. Since being elected to the joint standing committee, I have been very fortunate to travel the country and meet with community groups, businesses, parents, schools and students. I was so privileged to host the standing committee at the mighty Glenella State School in my electorate to hear from students firsthand about their views on how democracy functions and ways that we can potentially make it better. The Australian parliament is the people's parliament. We take their views very seriously, and the Australian people take this parliament seriously. That's why electoral legislation such as this should be dealt with in a very caring and consultative manner. There should be no corners cut and no rush to push through short-sighted legislation, and, perhaps more importantly, there should be widespread consultation to make sure that we get it right. When we are debating electoral legislation, we are debating not only the laws that govern ourselves but the laws that lay the foundation for our democracy. The bill here today seeks to draw a line under the trust that Australians have in their democratically elected officials and ensure without any doubt that Australians can have faith in their parliament and the elected people who serve them. In its current form before the House today, this bill has three schedules, which I want to spend a little bit of time going through. Of these, the proposed section 44 checklist, outlined in schedule 1, is perhaps the most important. We know only too well the uncertainty and vagueness that has plagued this parliament over the past two years because of the lack of understanding and clarification concerning section 44. In May last year, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters handed down its report into the impact of section 44 on Australian democracy. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the outstanding work of the committee and secretariat, which, I may add, is always done in a bipartisan and very professional manner. I pay tribute to the secretariat. I also want to pay particular tribute to the members of the committee. I commend Senator Linda Reynolds, former chair of the committee. Senator Reynolds is now serving the government in another capacity. I commend the current chair, Senator McGrath; the deputy chair and my great friend the member for Scullin; opposition senators Carol Brown and Ketter; and my colleague and friend the member for Tangney, Mr Morton. I also want to acknowledge the work of Senator Lee Rhiannon, who is no longer in the other place but who played a very important and crucial role in making sure there was proper scrutiny and oversight. The committee was fortunate to receive many submissions from a wide range of individuals and groups on this important matter that we are discussing today. We heard evidence from experts in the field and professionals with many, many years of service, who had a great understanding of the issue and who suggested different ways forward to mitigate futures that could be uncertain. In handing down the report in May last year, the committee highlighted four key recommendations of reform surrounding section 44 and the impact of the parliament. These included sweeping reforms, including a national referendum and constitutional change. However, when considering such a dramatic proposition, I do think it's key to acknowledge that the committee found that a referendum would be unlikely to be positively received by Australians and that the outcome of any referendum would indeed be uncertain. As such, the committee recommended that, if constitutional change is not put or is unsuccessful, administrative or legislative processes be put in place to mitigate the impact of section 44 on political participation in Australia. As we know, that is evidenced by the uncertainty and, dare I say, the chaos that we have seen recently. The importance of strategies such as we are debating today as part of this bill should not be underestimated. These changes will compel all Australians considering nominating for federal parliament to take this matter into deep consideration and ensure that the information is correct, because every federal candidate should ensure their compliance under our country's Constitution. That's why Labor is supporting the first schedule of this bill to enforce the section 44 eligibility checklist as a compulsory requirement for all candidates in a federal election. This checklist will be a key tool in ensuring that we can all ensure our own eligibility before the law. The checklist mirrors that which was used most recently in the by-elections, which added changes to compel candidates to answer mandatory questions regarding eligibility for nomination, where answers indicate issues with eligibility, provide evidence of rectification and acknowledge that deliberately providing false or misleading information may attract penalties. I note that several submissions to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters commented that candidates in political parties should take greater responsibility for due diligence and checking of their personal backgrounds and could include tendering documentary evidence when nominating to stand as a candidate. As a former party official in Queensland, as the state secretary and campaign director, many years ago, I understand the importance now that this will be placed upon party officials and Independents who may not have party structures around them. This is in line with checklists outlined in schedule 1 that we are supporting today. The bill also specifically restricts the AEC from determining whether information provided is correct or incorrect, to maintain the importance of the independence of the AEC. This is something that all committee members thought was particularly important, to make sure that the AEC remains the trusted and independent source it has been well known for, and the authority of parliament and judiciary, in such matters. However, importantly, nominations where evidence has not been provided will be automatically ruled invalid, compelling candidates to consider their circumstances prior to nomination. Whilst no strategy or change can be guaranteed to rectify 100 per cent of future uncertainties, this measure, I believe, will go a long way to ensuring greater transparency in our democracy and strengthen the trust that Australians have in their parliament. There are a whole range of schedules but I want to focus, in the main, on the first one. The bill will also go further to implement other recommendations, made by the Electoral Commissioner, to include some administrative arrangements for assisting the AEC in their duties. At this time of the debate, I want to place on record my strong support for the work of the Australian Electoral Commission. They do an incredible amount of work under a very trying set of circumstances. I think all candidates and, particularly, all members of parliament have a very professional and great relationship with AEC officers. AEC officers perform some of the most important—if not the most important—duties in upholding our democracy, and tonight I want to recognise the staff, the relief and support staff, and the management and leadership of the Australian Electoral Commission, under the commissioner, who uphold some of the highest electoral standards in the world. However, on this side of the House, the opposition is of the view that the parliament should include some of those changes that are necessary for the impending federal election. With that view, I understand that the bill will be amended in the Senate in line with bipartisan discussions between the government and the opposition, which have been held in a constructive way. The key sections of this bill that the opposition believe should be proceeded with include: the section 44 checklist or schedule 1, applying the six-metre exclusion zone at pre-poll stations, which will be consistent with the normal polling booth arrangements; amendments to the forwarding and processing of declaration votes; removal of the requirement to conduct the divisional returning officer, DRO, Senate count, allowing for the earlier commencement of preliminary scrutiny of declaration votes; removing the requirement to produce postal vote applications for preliminary scrutiny; allowing for earlier recheck of rejected declaration votes; and streamlining the process for counting and packaging the House of Representatives ballot papers. Sections other than these key changes should be removed from the current bill and, we believe—I certainly believe—should be considered at a later debate. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, at the centre of our democracy is trust in the institutions that run it and trust in the people who serve it. The bill, once amended in the Senate and passed, will be a small but valuable step in restoring public faith in our electoral system and parliamentary democracy. I want to thank the government for their bipartisan approach to the legislation, particularly the offices of Minister Hawke, who's in the chamber today, and Minister Cormann who, I understand, have worked very closely with the office of Labor's shadow special minister of state, Senator Don Farrell, and his small but very effective group of advisers who have worked in a collegiate and collaborative way on this matter and, I know, on other electoral committee matters. I look forward to seeing the amendments made in the Senate and the smooth passing of this important bill. 18:54 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I want to thank all members for their contribution to the debate on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018. I want to particularly thank members of the opposition and Senator Farrell and his office for working closely with the government on ensuring that this bill was a bipartisan bill and will restore the confidence that all members of this House are seeking to have in our electoral system. I'd like to thank members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for their significant work on electoral law modernisation and the impact of section 44 on Australian democracy over the course of the 45th Parliament. The government appreciates the constructive approach and the goodwill demonstrated by all committee members across all party lines. The recommendations of the committee have informed the government's policy decisions and the drafting of this bill. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is one of Australia's oldest pieces of legislation. While it has served the nation well, it is important that we continue to address deficiencies in this legislation in a non-partisan manner, modernising and improving electoral processes where necessary. The government has discussed this bill heavily with the opposition and I can indicate that, in the interests of progressing changes to the most crucial amendments that are necessary for the efficient conduct of the 2019 federal election, the government has undertaken to the opposition that we will move amendments to remove the less pressing amendments so they can be considered after the election with the benefit of greater reflection by all parties. For efficiency, those amendments will be moved in the Senate by my colleague the minister for finance, who will have more to say about those amendments in the Senate debate. As amended, the bill will deal with the eligibility of candidates, streamlined processes for forwarding declaration votes, removing a redundant step from the counting processes, allowing earlier checking of declaration votes, streamlining processes for counting and packaging of votes, and extending the six-metre exclusion zone to pre-poll centres, consistent with how it works on election day. Of the parts of the bill that will progress at this time, schedule 1 is particularly important because it will make it compulsory for candidates nominating for election to complete a qualification checklist demonstrating their eligibility under section 44 of the Constitution. This reform will ensure our electoral system protects the integrity of the candidate nomination process by forcing potential candidates to consider specific questions about their eligibility before they nominate. The mandatory checklist will also increase transparency, assuring Australians that candidates are qualified to sit in parliament before they cast their vote. In a 2018 report, Excluded: the impact of section 44 on Australian democracy, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters proposed that, in addition to legislative changes to require federal election candidates to disclose information about their eligibility to hold office under the Constitution, the Senate and the House also needed supplementary parliamentary processes related to issues of constitutional qualifications. Specifically, the committee proposed that there was a need for each chamber to require disclosures to the chambers following discovery of new information after an election. It also proposes a process for making referrals to the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. Consistent with the proposal from the committee, the government will move parliamentary motions after the passage of the modernisation bill in this chamber and in the Senate to ensure that there is a methodical process for disclosure of qualifications of senators who are appointed to fill casual vacancies and for parliamentarians who need to supplement information already in the public domain. The motions will also provide a fair and orderly process for referring questions about qualifications to a parliamentary committee inquiry process and for, in turn, referring cases to the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. Where it is found that an MP or senator has misled a committee, this would be a matter for the Privileges Committee in the relevant chamber. These motions have been shared with the opposition, as I've stated. They have also been provided to the chair of the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges, the chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, and the chair of the Senate Standing Committee of Senators' Interests. The reforms in this bill are important and are necessary to support the integrity of Australia's electoral system. Modernising and improving electoral processes will benefit the Australian public. The reforms will assist the Australian Electoral Commission to deliver effective and timely elections. They will also promote public confidence in Australian democracy ahead of and beyond the next federal election. Once again, I thank all members for their contribution. I commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 82 18:59 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Foreign Investors Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018, Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2018, Income Tax Rates Amendment (Sovereign Entities) Bill 2018 83

Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Foreign Investors Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018

Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2018

Income Tax Rates Amendment (Sovereign Entities) Bill 2018

Second Reading 83 19:01 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes: (1) the then Treasurer's shock decision on 14 September 2017 to ban the build-to-rent sector, which had multi-billion dollar ramifications for the Australian property market; (2) the then Treasurer's failure to reverse the decision, seeing significant damage to Australia's build-to-rent sector before finally capitulating on 26 July last year; (3) that the same incompetent approach to policy-making saw snap rule changes affecting investors in student accommodation; and (4) that failure to address the Government's mistakes in student accommodation could see more international students competing with Australians in the rental market". Labor will support these bills, including the government amendment. I will quickly cover the elements of the bills and address the, frankly, insouciant approach to policy in regard to build-to-rent housing and commercial student accommodation. Labor never had any particular concern with the majority of the measures in these bills, which seek to implement the government's 2018-19 budget measure 'Stapled structures—tightening concessions for foreign investors'. These bills do four things: they increase the managed investment trust withholding rate on fund payments that are attributable to non-concessional managed investment trust income to 30 per cent; they modify the thin capitalisation rules to prevent double-gearing structures; they limit the withholding tax exemption for superannuation funds for foreign residents; and they codify and limit the scope of the sovereign immunity tax exception. Collectively the measures in the bills have been estimated by Treasury to have a positive revenue impact of $400 million over the forward estimates. According to the government, the measures in the bills are designed to improve the integrity of the tax laws relating to stapled structures. A stapled structure, as members would be aware, is an arrangement involving two or more commonly owned entities, with at least one of them being a flow-through entity, including managed investment trusts, that are legally bound together so the interest in them cannot be bought or sold separately. The tax office has raised concerns that, while this access to concessional taxation was intentional for passive forms of investment, tax integrity issues arise when a stapled structure deliberately recharacterises active income—that is, income from day-to-day operations, which should be taxed at the company rate—as passive income, to be taxed at a concessional rate through the flow-through entity in the staple. The unintended consequence of that is that some foreign institutional investors are being taxed somewhere between zero and 15 per cent rather than at the corporate tax rate of 30 per cent for large firms. Schedules 1 and 5 increase the managed investment trust withholding rate on fund payments attributable to non-concessional managed investment trust income to 30 per cent. That applies to income which is managed investment trust cross-staple arrangement income, trading trust income, agricultural income or residential housing income. Transitional arrangements are proposed for existing investments, where the existing 15 per cent rate will continue to apply until a certain date, depending on the type of income involved, and these transitional arrangements are relatively long dated; in one case they go up to 1 July 2034. The thin capitalisation rules apply to foreign controlled Australian entities, Australian entities that operate internationally and foreign entities operating in Australia. They broadly deny deductions for debt financing expenses if the entity's debt exceeds certain limits. Foreign investors have been entering into double-gearing structures that allow them to convert more of their active business income to interest income, which is then subject to a 10 per cent interest withholding tax, or less in some cases. Double-gearing structures involve multiple layers of flow-through holding entities, being trusts or partnerships, that each issue debt against the same underlying asset. This allows investors to provide a greater proportion of their capital as investor debt and gear higher than the thin-capitalisation limits allow. As a result, investors are able to maintain and deduct higher levels of debt financing expenditure. Schedule 2 of the bill lowers the associate entity threshold from 50 per cent to 10 per cent. In addition, in determining the arms-length debt amount, an entity must consider the debt-to-equity ratios in entities that are relevant to the considerations of an independent lender or borrower. That said, what this bill does not do on thin capitalisation is address one of the largest and most glaring multinational tax loopholes, which has to do with debt shifting. Large firms can still artificially load debt onto Australia and thus claim large deductions for their interest payments, because the government refuses to take full action on debt deduction loopholes. Labor announced in 2015, in the first half of our first term in opposition, how we would go about fully closing debt deduction loopholes. Our plans have been costed to deliver approximately $3 billion over the decade to the budget bottom line. I turn now to limiting the withholding tax exemption for superannuation funds for foreign residents. A foreign resident deriving dividends or interest paid by an Australian resident generally has a liability to withholding tax in respect of the payment. But such a liability does not arise for superannuation funds for foreign residents, which are exempt from income tax in the country they reside in. This makes it attractive for these superannuation funds to gear their Australian equity investments by using investor debt to lower their overall tax bill. Schedule 3 will limit this exemption by ensuring that these superannuation funds will not be liable to withholding tax on amounts of interest, dividends or non-share dividends that they receive from an Australian entity only if, first, the income derived by the superannuation fund is exempt from income tax in the country in which it resides; second, the superannuation fund has a portfolio-like interest in the entity that pays the dividends, non-share dividends or interest to it; and third, the superannuation fund does not have influence, directly or indirectly, over decisions that comprise the control and directions of the operation of the entity that pays the dividends, non-share dividends or interest to it. Turning to sovereign immunity, certain income and gains from Australian investments are currently exempt from Australian tax law if they are derived by a foreign government or by a foreign entity that's wholly owned by a foreign government—commonly known as sovereign wealth funds. This is based on the international law doctrine of sovereign immunity. The current practice is that the tax office exempts investment income and gains derived by foreign governments and foreign government agencies from tax where the moneys invested are and will remain government moneys and the income is derived from a non-commercial activity. Schedule 4 of the bill codifies and limits the scope of this tax exemption. Under the government's proposal, an amount of ordinary income or statutory income of a sovereign entity will be non-assessable, non-exempt income if, broadly, the amount is a return on a portfolio-like membership interest, debt interest or non-share equity interest in an Australian company or managed investment trust and if no member of the sovereign entity group has influence, directly or indirectly, over divisions that comprise the control and directions of the operation of the Australian company or managed investment trust. The amount of ordinary income or statutory income that is non-assessable, non-exempt income of a sovereign entity is also exempt from withholding tax. Unless another provision in the Income Tax Rates Act 1986 applies to set a different rate, a sovereign entity will be liable to pay income tax on its taxable income at a rate of 30 per cent. I turn now to the issue of the government's bungling of student accommodation and build-to-rent, the issues canvassed in my second reading amendment—as we've seen, the then Treasurer's shock decision on 14 September 2017 to ban the build-to-rent sector, which had multibillion-dollar ramifications for the Australian property market. The then Treasurer failed to reverse the decision, seeing significant damage to the build-to-rent sector before finally capitulating on 26 July last year. We've seen a government which has, for a while at least, feigned an interest in housing affordability, but, extraordinarily, it is now running two different scare campaigns. It is saying that somehow house price declines under it are good—nothing to be scared about there—and then, conversely, that if Labor were to win office house prices would decline and that would be a very, very bad thing. This is contrary to Treasury advice, which says that any impact of Labor's grandfathered negative gearing and capital gains tax reforms on property prices would be modest at most. We have a government which has jumped the shark, is running outrageous scare campaigns on the opposition and has, indeed, begun setting up House economics committee inquiries into the opposition. You know you're ready to take your policies to the Australian people when the very government of Australia is treating you like the government and behaving like the opposition. 'Apoplectic and apocalyptic' would be its new three-word slogan. Instead of all this overheated hyperbole, the government could at least have taken build-to-rent seriously as part of their policy toolkit on housing affordability. As the shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, has pointed out, build-to-rent remains too small in Australia. It has potential—$300 billion worth of residential assets, according to CBRE—but the then Treasurer's approach to the build-to-rent sector has seen that nascent sector stymied. On 14 September 2017, then Treasurer Morrison and the member for Deakin announced that managed investment trusts would no longer be able to invest in residential property, with the exception of affordable housing. That policy completely ambushed the property and construction sector. The bizarre banning of managed investment trust purchases of residential property would have directly hit housing supply, and it came at a time when the rest of the world was embracing build-to-rent. While now Prime Minister Morrison was banning investment in affordable housing, Britain had 17,000 build-to-rent units completed just that month, with another 24,000 under construction and nearly 55,000 granted planning permission. Tumbleweeds rolled on for 10 months, and the former Treasurer Morrison then had an epiphany. He waited until after the close of business on 26 July 2018 to announce a backdown and then tried to bury that backdown in the next stage of a consultation process on stapled security. I don't think the word 'lackadaisical' has been used as much in Hansard of any government before the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. Perhaps we should get the Parliamentary Library to check. But it isn't just lackadaisical, because the managed investment trust debacle didn't end there. We saw purpose-built student accommodation arbitrarily cut out of eligibility for the concessional managed investment trust regime. As part of a Senate inquiry into the bill, concerns were raised that the bill not allow off-site student accommodation to be treated as commercial residential properties and, as such, to face a typical 30 per cent withholding tax, compared to the concessional rate of 15 per cent. A second concern raised was that the transitional arrangements only apply where a project had a construction contract signed on or before the date the legislation was introduced into parliament. Stakeholders raised concerns that, while some projects had not reached the later stage of signing a construction contract, significant commitments such as the purchase of land and project development work had been made under the assumption of a 15 per cent withholding rate. These are significant issues. They have potentially damaging effects on the international student market and on the housing market generally. When you add to housing supply in one sector you push out the housing supply curve right across the board, and you ensure that housing becomes more affordable. Australia now has a homeownership rate that's the lowest it's been in six decades. It places us in the bottom third of the OECD for homeownership. Back in the early 1980s, the ratio of house price to disposable household income was two. Now it's gone to five, even after some of the recent softening that has occurred under this government. We still have a situation in Australia where young couples of modest means, such as a couple who might be a teacher and a police officer, struggle to break into the housing market in many of our capital cities. Yes, prices have come off, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, but the decline in prices that we've seen over the last year has been dwarfed by the increase in prices over the prior decade. We understand that the government will be moving amendments that will fix the problems that this regime created for the build-to-rent sector and for student accommodation. We're pleased that the government has come to this sensible position, which ensures we maintain the tax integrity of the measure and that the student accommodation sector is not unfairly affected. That's vital, given that education is now Australia's third-largest export and that students living away from home, whether they be Australian students or foreign students, have basic needs to be met. Safe, convenient, cheap and suitable accommodation is at or near the top of that list. I have visited many university campuses in Australia. One of the major focuses for our higher education market is ensuring the quality of student accommodation. That's vital as our universities are increasingly relying on overseas students as part of their business model. It's important too, as we try to build a more competitive university sector in which Australian students are willing to consider not just universities in their home town but universities right across Australia. We get the accommodation piece of that right and we get a better functioning student choice market in which students are able to pick an institution that is best suited for them and their talents. Labor will be supporting this bill. We're pleased that the government has come to its senses on the issue of build-to-rent and student accommodation. It is absolutely vital that we close tax loopholes. I commend to the government Labor's multinational tax plan, cracking down on tax havens and multinational profit-shifting. This bill takes a step towards improving the integrity of our tax system, but it's a very small step in contrast with Labor's robust, carefully costed multinational tax plan. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Ms Chesters 249710 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 19:17 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It's always a pleasure to see you there in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, ruling over this parliament with an iron fist. It's a good opportunity to get up and speak not just about the issue at hand around the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Foreign Investors Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018, the Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2018 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Sovereign Entities) Bill 2018 but about the broader challenges upon which they sit. I pick up from where the previous speaker made reference to the challenges of tax reform, but he seemed to be mostly focused on corporate tax reform and seeking to target and demonise some sectors of the economy rather than looking at the even bigger picture of the task and challenge we confront. As was mentioned by the previous speaker, despite his wanting to make it self-referential: yes, the Economics Committee is currently completing an inquiry into the implications of removing franking credits, but it's not an investigation into opposition policy; it's an inquiry into the issue and the opportunity to have a dialogue and a discussion about the challenges of dividend imputation, the structure of retirement planning, how the tax system can seek to advantage some and not others, and, critically, when and at what point and at what stage of people's lives they should make contributions to the tax system, when they should get deductions and when they should not. A simple point to which those on the other side of the chamber seem to be completely oblivious is that a franking credit is a tax credit reflecting tax paid. Remove the tax credit and only tax is paid, which is why I and others talk about Labor's retirement tax and what it's going to do for a million Australian retirees who are going to have their overpaid tax stolen from them, should there be a change of government. The impact of this, by the way, is very real. We've heard witness statement after witness statement, testimony after testimony, going specifically through examples of these people's experiences—what it means for them and their lived experience. I know that isn't the core focus of this bill but it is part of the tax system and challenges we face. One of the most interesting things, when you talk about these issues with people affected by dividend imputation and refundable franking credits, is how many of them say, 'What we really want is comprehensive tax reform.' We recognise there's got to be a change in the system and structure. People talk regularly about the challenges faced around corporate taxation, whether it's efficient and whether it meets the expectations of the Australian community, whether the tax revenue that's collected is sufficient, whether people are using loopholes or privileges to minimise their tax obligation. But they also go through why they feel they're being targeted if they simply get rid of removing refundable franking credits. I've got many of them here, witness statements and examples of people who have serious issues as a consequence. And some of them are quite difficult. Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting— Mr TIM WILSON IMW It's quite disappointing that the deputy chair of the committee is deriding the witness testimony of people like Chris Sparks. He was at the Merimbula hearing on 4 February 2019 and heard it directly. This is his statement: Thank you, committee. My name is Chris Sparks. I live in Kalaru and I'm here today with my wife, Wendy. Those astute members of you will note that I sit in front of you today in a wheelchair—a very stylish custom-made ultralight wheelchair. That's because I was injured when I was three years old and had a spinal cord injury. In spite of my injury, I've been lucky enough to work in open employment since the age of 19. I'm now 59 and I'm moving into my latter years and retiring. I worked initially in the world of information technology and went on to run small and large businesses. I ran a corporate entity for a US company in Australia and up in Asia. I've led a great life. The sad reality, though, of ageing with a spinal cord injury, particularly when you've had one for as long as me, is you can add 10 years to your life—so, at 59, I probably have the abilities to get around of a 69-year-old able-bodied bloke. I can't travel independently anymore, and maintaining my business life is proving increasingly difficult. So we're heading for retirement. Like many of the accused here— His words, not mine— I've got a self-managed super fund. I consulted my accountant last week. We'll probably be wrapping up our business next year, as I turn 60 in October. You're all welcome to come to my birthday at the Tathra pub. That was his comment. By the way, I'm sure if you make an investigation you'll be able to find out about it. These people are the victims of removing refundable franking credits. I, literally, have hundreds of them. They're not people confected; they're not people who just send in proforma submissions; they're real Australians who have come to voice their concerns. Some of the concerns people have raised are not just about why they're being discriminated against, why they're being targeted, why there hasn't been a focus on comprehensive tax reform but also, quite legitimately amongst the Australian community, concerns about what is being done to deal with multinational tax avoidance and investor avoidance as well as large company tax avoidance and why that isn't being focused on. We know this government actually has quite a proud record of doing so. At the start of this term, we introduced a series of measures to close loopholes and put extra obligations on multinational companies who do business in Australia and shift their assets and investments overseas and minimise their tax obligations. This presents us with a whole host of challenges around competitiveness, of which tax is an important part. It blows me away that some members of the opposition don't seem to understand that competitiveness in the tax system, in a global economy, is important. Therefore, the only solution—I said it in my first speech, I've said it a hundred times before in this House and I'll continue to say it, and I don't care whether it conflicts or is consistent with government policy—is wholesale tax reform. And we need a rebasing of the tax system not just about who's paying tax. It needs to be about what stages of life they're at and making sure that people can't find ways to avoid it. There's an excellent book on this by a fellow by the name of Charles Adams, called For Good and Evil: the Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilisation. I'll buy you a copy, if you like, Deputy Speaker, not to influence you but because it's a genuinely good read. It looks at the history of tax and the failure of tax reform, and it looks at how bad tax systems become worse and dramatically undermine the structure of a society and an economy. There are a number of lessons out of the thesis that's been done, looking at historical examples. What does it say? Taxes should generally be low so that people don't want to avoid them. Taxes should be simple to remove opportunities that can be exploited. And, of course, it's to make sure that as many people as possible pay tax. This is a point that former Treasurer Peter Costello regularly made. He always talked about the failure of different approaches—particularly when the opposition were in government; they took the approach of trying to minimise the number of people who were paying tax and maximise the number of people who were relieved of tax obligations. I make no apology: I fundamentally believe that everybody should pay at least some contribution to the tax system. If you can take out of it, you should be expected to contribute to it. Everybody should have an equal investment in society. Everybody should have a want to perpetuate it. Everybody should expect a sense of responsibility for the country that we live in and cherish and love and should not be able to avoid that responsibility. And that includes multinationals who take advantage and seek opportunity in this country. I think that's an utterly fair and consistent approach. What we need to do is make sure that people can't take advantage of the tax system to take advantage of Australians. Of course, in the end, the only way that's truly achieved, to be contrarian, is to look at things like broad based tax reform, particularly consumption based taxes, which companies find more difficult to avoid, rather than simply try to focus energy and resources on having an extremely complicated, unnecessarily complicated, tax system. I don't want it to be taken that I'm some sort of deserter, running off and supporting New Zealand, but their tax system is a lot simpler than ours, and I have to say it has a few strengths too. What do we have before us? We have some bills to at least close some loopholes, to start to address some of the challenges around tax reform for Australia, to minimise the opportunity for companies to take advantage of Australia and take revenue offshore, unchecked. We have a number of proposals within the legislation, the broad principles of which I think most members agree with, despite them putting forward an amendment. The bill stops double gearing so that foreign investors can't shift profits to avoid tax. Tick. It stops foreign investors from getting tax concessions on stapled structures to achieve tax rates of 15 per cent or less—or in some cases almost tax free—on Australian business income. Tick. The bill has measures to tax foreign investors' income from Australian agricultural land and Australian residential property, other than affordable housing, in managed investment trusts at the top corporate tax rate. Tick. There is a measure to provide transition periods of up to seven and 15 years for existing investments—and that's critical if we want to continue to be an attractive destination for capital so that we can create job opportunities for the next generation of Australians. It allows for a 15-year concessional rate for investments in new, nationally significant infrastructure, as determined by the Treasurer, and implements the government's budget commitments to supporting affordable rental housing by providing a 15 per cent tax rate. All the measures are good. All the measures are critical. The final point I want to pick up on—and it's one the previous speaker raised as well—is that, more than anything else, what we need to do is drive investment in the housing market. Housing affordability is one of the most foundational principles on which a healthy society prospers. Yes, it creates jobs, and that's very important. But, as observed by Hernando de Soto Polar, the Peruvian economist, in one of the great lessons of the French Revolution, if people don't have an investment in society, they will not seek to conserve the status quo. And he's right. We should want every Australian to own their own home, or aspire to own their own home, and to be in a position to secure so. This government has done quite a lot in making sure, through housing agreements, we can help that pathway on its way. I know the opposition have policies too, and they're welcome to. I at least appreciate the fact that they have an appreciation for the challenge and the issue. But this requires a whole-of-government, whole-of-nation response, because it is in the best interests of the country. You'll hear me say this time and time again, and I say it for deeply philosophical, committed reasons— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 88 ADJOURNMENT Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Kuwait, Jordan, Palestine and Israel 88 19:30 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell From 7 January to 15 January, as co-convener of the Australian Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, I led a fact-finding mission to Kuwait, Jordan, Palestine and Israel. This was a cross-party delegation comprising Labor, Liberal, National and Greens members of parliament. Our primary goals were to enhance parliamentary relations with Kuwait and Jordan, to seek a greater understanding of the Palestine-Israel conflict and to see firsthand the impact that the occupation of the West Bank has on the daily lives of its people. Over an eight-day period, we met with key government and non-government officials, academics and business stakeholders. As well, we heard from local Palestinians and Israelis during our visits to Kuwait, Amman, Jericho, Ramallah, Hebron, Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Our journey began in Kuwait where we held meetings with the speaker of the Kuwaiti parliament, members of the foreign affairs committee and the Kuwait chamber of commerce. In Amman, we met with members of the Australia-Jordan Parliamentary Friendship Group. We had a very frank and candid meeting with the Jordanian foreign minister, Mr Ayman Safadi, who impressed upon us the need to come and work together towards a comprehensive, just and peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The minister made it abundantly clear that ongoing tensions and the absence of a germane peace process were being stoked and manipulated by extremists, and that, unless resolved, this conflict would continue to inspire and feed the terrorist narrative. Crossing the King Hussein Bridge, or the Allenby Bridge, our first meeting was with the Governor of Jericho who briefed us about the impact that Israeli settlements are having on Palestinian farmers—in particular, critical access to water, land, roads, infrastructure and other utilities—which is having a detrimental effect on local economic development. Water security was also raised during our meetings with NGOs Ma'an, Al-Haq and the Palestinian Hydrology Group in Ramallah. It was made clear that water restrictions in Gaza and the West Bank are not only a fundamental violation of human rights; they're a key environmental issue in the occupation of Palestinian land by Israel. We met with the Governor of Hebron, Mr Jibreen al-Bakri. During our walk through the historic town centre, the starkness of the situation was both confronting and palpable. It's a network of security checkpoints, heavily armed Israeli defence force patrols and a crisscross of securitised urban infrastructure. There are about 800 settlers in Hebron and, at any one time, 400 soldiers are deployed to protect them. What we saw in Hebron is very much an example of the broader network of segregation that exists in the West Bank: hundreds of kilometres of the towering wall separating Ramallah from Jerusalem and hundreds of checkpoints that the Israeli defence force use to separate, control and restrict the movement of the Palestinian people. Our visit to the Aida refugee camp in Bethlehem reinforced the miserable consequences of this continuing regime. Its debilitating impact on both Israelis and Palestinians is profound. We met with Israeli NGOs Breaking the Silence and the human rights group B'Tselem. They pressed strongly that Israel's future security could only be secured by living in peace with their Palestinian neighbours. These courageous Israelis speak out because they love their country and are proud to be Israelis. Their plea to Australia, as a close friend of Israel, is for us to urge Israel's political leadership to negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians in order to progress a two-state solution. They realise that time is running out for a viable Palestinian state. The alternative, they say, will have far-reaching consequences for peace, democracy and security in Israel. This was also the message conveyed to us during our meetings with Palestinian officials Dr Hanan Ashrawi, Dr Mustafa Barghouti, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Nabil Abu Rudeina, and others, who expressed their despair at the Trump administration's decision to withdraw funding from UNRWA and to close the PLO office in Washington. They saw this as signs of an increasingly one-sided approach to the much anticipated peace deal that might be eventually offered. It was conveyed to us repeatedly that the US decision to move their embassy to Jerusalem had intensified tensions and contributed to the disillusionment and exasperation of a new generation of young Palestinians who believe Oslo is finished and that the only option is resistance. Similarly, the Australian government's badly managed announcement regarding moving our embassy to West Jerusalem in the future was seen as unhelpful and one that broke with our long-held commitment to progressing a two-state solution. Our delegation was at all times encouraged to work with the Australian parliament and government to assist in finding a peaceful way forward. I'd like to thank our ambassador in Kuwait, Mr Jonathan Gilbert; our ambassador in Jordan, Mr Miles Armitage, and the Australian representative in Ramallah for their excellent support and assistance with the delegation. Finally, I'd like to thank his excellency Izzat Abdulhadi, the Ambassador of the State of Palestine here in Australia. I'd like to table the delegation's report. Murray-Darling Basin Plan, National Security 89 19:35 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Earlier this month, the Centre Alliance political party—for those who don't know they are the remnants of the former Nick Xenophon party, a party which, by the way, Nick Xenophon is no longer a member of, which is a shame because he is that party—announced what could only be regarded as an ill-informed, irresponsible and just plain wrong policy. That may be a reason why Nick Xenophon is no longer a member of that party. They called for the ban on the export of cotton. I represent the river in South Australia from lock 6 all the way to the mouth. So you can understand that I've spent a lot of time understanding river politics. What I don't understand is how Centre Alliance, including Rebekha Sharkie, the member for Mayo, who has an involvement in relation to the river and represents some of the Basin in South Australia could come to this decision. Farmers who have a water allocation, if they don't grow cotton, will either grow something else or sell their water to someone who does grow cotton. There will be no water returned to the river. I was very pleased that this ill-informed, irresponsible and, quite frankly, wrongheaded policy was called about by people across the community. They cited, if you like, the water intensive nature of cotton. Cotton takes about seven megs per hectare to grow. Almonds, predominantly a South Australian crop, take about 15 megs per hectare to grow. If we are banning cotton then what are we saying about South Australian almonds? I have news for the people of the river land in my electorate: they are also attacking other commodity groups, because wine grapes take more than seven megs a hectare to grow, as does citrus. So the Nick Xenophon Team, or if you like the Centre Alliance—the new party—is effectively saying, 'No more almonds, no more citrus and no more wine grapes in the river land.' It's absolutely wrongheaded and ridiculous. Don't take my word for it. The National Farmers' Federation said: "The shadow of an impending federal election has the Centre Alliance Party acting nothing short of hysterical. "Senator Patrick's stunt has everything to do with profile raising and nothing to do with the national interest. … The press release goes on: In particular, Ms Simson— The president of the National Farmers' Federation— … said the Centre Alliance Member for Mayo, Rebekah Sharkie was acting ignorant to the livelihoods of her electorate. "A political system that determines what industries can exist would jeopardise Mayo's horticultural sector. … Of course, that's the point. Farmers in Australia should determine what they grow not this place. My question to the Centre Alliance team is this: if it's inappropriate for people to grow cotton at seven megs a hectare an annual crop, and you have a candidate running in Barker who grows potatoes—irrigates from the river—why is it okay for potatoes to extract from the river at eight megs a hectare but not cotton at seven megs a hectare? Perhaps that candidate hasn't had an involvement in this policy. It's wrongheaded, it's attention grabbing and, quite frankly, the people of South Australia have seen through it, as has the National Farmers' Federation. I thought that would be the most stupid thing that has happened in politics in February but I'm wrong. Earlier in this place we saw an alliance between Labor, the Greens and the Independents, who I'm now going to refer to as 'Labor in disguise', effectively vote to weaken our border protection laws, laws that have stood this in country in good stead for a very long time. Those in this place will remember that 50,000 people arrived on 800 boats when we had weaker borders. There were 1,200 deaths at sea and 800 children in detention. Our policies have firmed our borders and returned us to the position where we decide the people who come to this country and the circumstances in which they come, and the people of Australia have consistently voted for stronger borders. We are now in a situation where we have weakened those borders. I expect there are people smugglers in Indonesia and other places right now celebrating that decision. They would be celebrating that decision and be emboldened to action. I say to this place and the people of Australia: we now have weaker border protection laws than we had this morning; people smugglers and that insidious trade have been emboldened; and what happens from now on is on the heads of those who sit opposite and their friends—the Labor Party in disguise on the crossbench. Racism 89 19:40 Dr PHELPS 008Z0 Wentworth Last Sunday the people of Wentworth woke up to the shocking discovery that public places in Bondi Beach and Bondi Junction had been vandalised with anti-Semitic graffiti, including more than 20 swastikas on the iconic Bondi Beach murals. The swastika became the most recognisable icon of Nazi propaganda, becoming a symbol of anti-Semitism and terror. Today in Germany and other European states the public display of Nazi symbolism, including on the internet, is prohibited by law, and individuals violating such terms are subject to criminal proceedings. There is no place for anti-Semitism or any form of racism in Australia. The New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies CEO Vic Alhadeff stated: The swastika represents the ultimate in race hatred, and the people of Bondi and indeed all Australians of goodwill will stand together in condemning this shocking display. Unfortunately, this local incident is reflective of the rise of anti-Semitism not only in Australia but globally as well. According to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry in their 2018 report, in the past 12 months there has been a 59 per cent increase in anti-Semitic incidents, such as harassment, vandalism and threats by email, telephone and social media. This increase is unprecedented in Australia. The French government has also reported that anti-Semitic acts increased by 69 per cent in the first nine months of 2018. Regardless of your religion or beliefs, it's important as a community and as a nation that we stand up against any form of racism. Vigilance is vital. The Wentworth community is united in its outrage and its condemnation of Sunday's events. As Joshua Kirsh from the Australasian Union of Jewish Students remarked, 'Anti-Semitic imagery at Bondi Beach, at the heart of Sydney's Jewish community, can never be tolerated.' The anti-Semitic symbols of the past if left unchecked can far too easily manifest as anti-Semitic violence in the present and the future. Soon after the graffiti was discovered on Sunday, Waverley Council promptly removed it and repaired the subsequent damage to the murals. While physically removed, the damage and shock continue to reverberate across the community. Racism in all its manifestations diminishes the moral character of our nation. It divides and cultivates fear in a way that opposes harmony, peace and tolerance. The Mayor of Waverley Council, John Wakefield, said, 'Racism has no place in our culturally diverse community and we condemn last night's incident in the strongest terms.' This episode is further evidence that parliament needs to unite on humanitarian issues, with the human experience being at the forefront of our policy-making decisions. Divisive politics should have no place in Australia. Everyone has the right to their view, but it is our job as parliamentarians to unite rather than to divide. This is the strength of our democracy. Australia is internationally recognised as a successful multicultural society. We are proudly diverse, built on the strong, determined shoulders of immigration. We as a nation we are facing the broader crisis of intolerance and the rise of hate politics, evidenced by the Bondi graffiti incident. This negativity is a global phenomenon known as a post-crisis realignment, a polarising divisive sentiment that focuses on fear, national security and the threat of terrorism. Politicians are servants to our nation. We are tasked to navigate a path that will create a unified, safe and prosperous society that is capable of healthy, rigorous debate. We must ensure differences are respected and tolerance is revered and rewarded. With the decisions we make we collectively nurture and define the character of the nation. As leaders, we must use the experiences of the past and the challenges of the present to define and determine together how we want to evolve, where we want to go and, ultimately, who we want to be. I believe deeply that Australians all deserve more than the divisive, negative hate politics that presently dominate the national political conversation. Human rights issues should not be about whether you are on the Left or the Right side of politics. It is about being intrinsically and morally responsible. It is about the human experience. Together we can say, 'No more!' to scaremongering and negative politics. We can say no to anti-Semitism. We can say no to racism. We should search for and embrace opportunities to find bipartisan support for humanitarian, economic and social issues. In light of the racism exhibited on Sunday in Bondi, I encourage the House to reflect and consider the standards that we set in our policymaking that ultimately defines the character of our great nation. Wide Bay Electorate: Infrastructure 90 19:45 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay I'd like to reflect on some of the key achievements and the progress that we have made in Wide Bay in the past 12 months or so. Safer roads save lives, and, since being elected, I've worked with families, emergency services, local media, local councils, road safety groups and the broader community to highlight the need to fix the Bruce Highway from Cooroy to Maryborough. Our joint efforts have secured $800 million in last year's budget to fast-track the construction of section D of the Bruce Highway Cooroy to Curra project. This will transform one of the deadliest sections of the Bruce Highway into one of the safest, and, over time, it will save countless lives. I'm pleased that the corridor clearing has now begun, and I want tenders to be called and construction to start as soon as possible. The $38 million construction of the Tinana interchange is done. The $16 million Tiaro safety works are finished and work has started on the $12 million upgrade to eight intersections north of Gympie. Planning is underway for the much-needed Bells Bridge-Bruce Highway intersection, and the Liberal-National government is fully funding new overtaking lanes at Tinana and intersection upgrades at Gootchie. Last year I secured $5 million to replace the notorious Coondoo Creek Bridge on Tin Can Bay Road. The coalition government has also invested $2.4 million to upgrade and replace Cooroy's Mary River Road Bridge, Cooran's Old Noosa Road Bridge and Sunrise Beach's Orealla Crescent Bridge. I was pleased to join with the Noosa's mayor, Tony Wellington, to officially open these bridges at Cooroy and Cooran. The mayor and I also recently activated Noosa's $155,000 CCTV network, fully funded by the Liberal-National government. I've also been working with the government to partner with businesses to create real jobs. In Maryborough we've reserved $28.5 million for the NIOA-Rheinmetall state-of-the-art projectile-forging plant that, through construction and into the future, will create 178 jobs. The Liberal-National government is also jointly funding six new projects in the electorate. Gympie's Nolan Meats is receiving $5 million to expand its processing facility, creating some 245 jobs locally. Maryborough's Dale and Meyers is creating 30 jobs through a $1.7 million commitment. Teys Australia Murgon is using $267,000 invested to expand their cattle hide processing plant. Suncoast Gold Macadamias at Glanmire has received $270,000 for two projects to improve factory output. At Rainbow Beach, $10,000 will help local tourism operators. The coalition government is also extending the mobile phone network, with new base stations at Maaroom, Yerra, Tansey, Windera, Glastonbury, Widgee, Woolooga, Kin Kin, Boreen Point, and along the Wide Bay Highway, Cootharaba Road, Pomona Kin Kin Road, and Maryborough Biggenden Road. More are on the way. Noosa Council's digital hub at Peregian is receiving $2.5 million, and that will become the centrepiece of innovation on the Sunshine Coast. The coalition government is also supporting the South Burnett, with BIEDO receiving $468,000 to help locals bounce back from natural disasters. Since being elected, I've worked closely with local businesses and communities throughout Wide Bay to deliver the funding, infrastructure and services to grow our beautiful Wide Bay region, and I'm working with the Liberal-National government to continue to deliver for Wide Bay in 2019. al-Araibi, Mr Hakeem, Asylum Seekers 91 19:50 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Last night we heard the fantastic news that the Bahrain government's extradition proceedings against footballer Hakeem al-Araibi, a refugee and resident of Australia who has spent the last two months in a Thai jail under threat of refoulement, were being dropped. Hakeem returned to a hero's welcome at Melbourne Airport today, and he was reunited with his wife this afternoon. The public campaign to bring Hakeem home brought out the best in our community. It united people from all walks of life under the 'save Hakeem' slogan. Football clubs, trade unions, human rights NGOs, communities of faith and figures on all sides of politics united to save this young man's life. In Footscray, I had the privilege of being the first person to sign Jim Lawrence's enormous #SaveHakeem banner. Wider than my office building and taller than the awning, it took eight members of my staff and volunteers to hold the banner aloft in front of my office. Jim normally makes banners to support the Socceroos and wanted to use his unique skill set to rally community support for Hakeem. Outside the rancorous partisan debate of this building, in the Australian community this is the way that Australians respond when confronted with people in need: they want to do their bit to help. Those of us in this building need to take the lead of everyday Australians shown in the Hakeem campaign in the way that we deal with these issues: less posturing and politics and more practical assistance. That's why I've been campaigning for the past two years for Australia to adopt an expanded and improved community refugee sponsorship scheme. According to the UNHCR, there are currently 65 million displaced people around the world fleeing war, conflict and persecution, the most since the Second World War. In our region alone, there are more than a million refugees and many more displaced people. Community sponsorship allows non-government actors—businesses, religious organisations, community groups and individuals—to directly meet the costs of resettling refugees either via direct financial contributions or through the provision of in-kind goods and services. Canada has used this community-driven model to resettle more than 300,000 refugees since the 1970s. Almost two years ago, I introduced a motion in this chamber calling on the Australian government, business and community organisations to explore ways to use community sponsorship to expand the resettlement of refugees in Australia. The motion was supported not only by my Labor colleagues but also by colleagues in this chamber from the National and Liberal parties. The member for Mallee spoke passionately about seeing firsthand how a refugee community from Myanmar, in Nhill in his electorate, had been embraced by the local community and had rejuvenated the social and economic life of the town. The member for McMillan supported the motion and described the campaign for community sponsorship as 'a clarion call for compassion, conscience and common sense'. After this motion was debated, civil society picked up the baton and began a nationwide campaign to build support for community sponsorship in Australia. A coalition of NGOs including the Refugee Council of Australia, Amnesty International, Save the Children, Welcome to Australia, Rural Australians for Refugees and the Australian Churches Refugee Taskforce joined forces to form the Community Refugee Sponsorship Initiative. These NGOs gathered tens of thousands of signatures from supporters and developed a sponsorship model based on international best practice. I was pleased to host one of this group's community meetings recently at the home of the Western Bulldogs, the Whitten Oval in my electorate, and I'm proud of the support that the Western Bulldogs Community Foundation has offered for the campaign. Last year at the Labor national conference, we announced that a Shorten Labor government would resettle an extra 5,000 refugees a year via community sponsorship on top of our existing commitment, to increase our humanitarian resettlement intake to 27,000 a year. Politics is pretty hard work a lot of the time, but the day that announcement was made was one of the good days. Just think of the potential of this announcement. Think about how good everyone who was involved in the Save Hakeem campaign felt today when they heard the good news that a man's life had been saved through their joint efforts and that he could come and build a future with his family, with his footy club and with the Australian community—with us. Then think about the potential of 5,000 Save Hakeems a year. Imagine the effect on people in communities across Australia coming together to transform the lives of 5,000 people a year by giving them a future in Australia. That's a vision that I can believe in. Federal Election 92 19:55 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax This year the Australian people have a big decision to make. It is one of those years where they face a fork in the road. On the one hand they have the opportunity to stay with a strong government that's delivering a strong economy—and the jobs, the infrastructure and the guarantee of services that come with that strong government—or they can choose Labor. They can choose a government that has been proven to have a problem with unrestrained spending, with excessive waste and with high taxes that will condemn Australians to revisit the reckless mistakes of the past. This is because Labor doesn't know how to manage money. Labor has never known how to manage money, and it is the Australian people who cop the brunt of it. We already know about Labor's $200 billion-odd of additional taxes that they are going to rip out of the pockets of everyday Australians. We know about Labor's housing tax that will put the boot into an already-weak property market, driving asset values down and rents up. We also know that a one-pronged attack against the property market isn't enough for Labor, which is why they're doubling down so that not just that asset class but also others are going to be hit with a 50 per cent increase in capital gains tax from Labor. Then, of course, there's Labor's retiree tax—a callously targeted tax, impacting around 900,000 Australians. Fifteen thousand retirees in my region of the Sunshine Coast alone are set to lose up to 30 per cent of their incomes. This is Labor's plan. Then, of course, more recently, true to form, before the release of the final report from the Hayne royal commission, Labor's shadow minister for financial services announced that Labor will blindly implement every single recommendation. Now, this is somewhat typical. They didn't know what the recommendations were, but they were prepared to sign up and implement them all in full. It's reminiscent of the Leader of the Opposition's comment years ago about the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard's words, when he said something along the lines of, 'I don't know what she said, but I agree with what it is that she said.' This is Labor. This is the Leader of the Opposition. This is the person who wants to run the country. This is the person who believes that he and his team know how to run the economy. Of course, among the recommendations that came from the commission were proposals that would impact the mortgage broking industry. There's no doubt that putting in place a best-interest test is a good idea and something I certainly support. I also support action on trailing commissions, as long as the industry has sufficient time to adjust and transition. I believe the date mooted, 1 July 2020, should give the industry the time it needs. However, I do have concerns around the idea of banning, abolishing up-front fees and up-front commissions. By doing that, plus the trails, mortgage broking would be over. Mortgage broking as a sector would be dead. There are 125 mortgage brokers in my electorate of Fairfax. I met many of them last week, actually. They are as baffled as I am as to why the Labor Party accepts such a proposal, holus-bolus, and is prepared to see that industry absolutely destroyed. They signed up to that without even reading it. This is the incompetence of the Labor Party. Well, we cannot stand for that, and I for one will be standing up for the 125 mortgage brokers in my electorate of Fairfax, whose industry should not be destroyed outright by the blindness of the Labor Party. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 93 NOTICES

Tuesday, 12 February 2019

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Wicks) took the chair at 16:01.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 98 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Fava, Mrs Grazia (Grace), Luke, Ms Julie 98 16:01 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I'd like to take the opportunity to bring the parliament's attention to two great women from my electorate. In the recent Australia Day honours, Grace Fava was awarded the Order of Australia medal for her services to community health. I'm truly privileged to know Grace, who is a passionate and effective advocate for those with autism in our community. Grace has run the Autism Advisory and Support Service for over 10 years. The service has assisted countless numbers of families in our region and beyond. It is the only service offering a 24-hour autism hotline. They receive calls from parents, professionals, teachers and friends of kids with autism and provide practical support, suggestions and referrals. From time to time, they even get calls from the UK, from people confused about which Liverpool it actually is. Grace started AASS from the front room of her home, after the diagnosis of her sons almost 15 years ago. Now housed in a cottage in Liverpool, they provide counselling, music therapy, support, playgroups, a young adult social group and support groups for families, in addition to the 24-hour hotline. Grace's family, especially her sons, are the lights of her life. Her motivation is very clear when she shares their milestones with me. I congratulate Grace and thank her for the work she does for our community every day. Julie Luke has been the CEO of the Western Suburbs Junior Rugby League for almost 30 years and is a stalwart in our community. Julie was recognised after the 2018 season by the New South Wales Rugby League with the John Quinn Award. Julie was the longest serving female administrator in the New South Wales Junior Rugby League. I am one of the parents whose family has benefited from the work that Julie and the board of the junior league did for our area. Julie's passion and commitment to children and families in our region has seen countless young players go on and succeed, get fit and enjoy life. During the season, Julie often works seven days a week. In early season registrations, it's not unusual for her to still be at the office late into the night, making sure that every player and every team is ready to play on that first weekend of competition. It is sad, then, to report to the House that, due to funding being withdrawn by the major sponsor last year, Julie will no longer be the CEO of the Junior League. Equally disappointing is that that same funding not forthcoming last year is now suddenly available, and there will be a junior competition. It comes, however, without Julie or the board being involved—despite many years volunteer service. I acknowledge, recognise and thank Julie and Grace for their commitment to our area and, more importantly, our children and their community. Bennelong Electorate: Australia Day Awards 98 16:04 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong A number of local residents have received awards in recent months, and I would like to congratulate two of them today. I would like to draw attention to a particularly distinguished member of my electorate of Bennelong, Mr Hassib Elias, and his exceptional work for our community. Mr Elias has been a resident of Ryde for more than 50 years and during that time has been involved in numerous community projects and efforts. In recent years, he has devoted himself to assisting refugees and new migrants to the local area. Among other things, this includes finding them housing, employment and translation services. Diverse communities such as Bennelong owe an enormous debt of gratitude to individuals like Mr Elias. Without their work, so many newcomers to our country would find their new life here so much harder than it needs to be. In addition to his work with migrants and refugees, Mr Elias is the president of the Australian Palestinian Association and a long-serving member of the City of Ryde's Multicultural Advisory Committee. It should be abundantly clear that Mr Elias has put community service at the core of his life. I'm very proud to inform the House that because of his marvellous record he was recently named as the City of Ryde Citizen of the Year during the council's Australia Day ceremony. There is certainly no-one more deserving of this honour. Mr Elias's example is a reminder for all of us to embrace new members of our community so that they feel valued and respected. Only then can our communities live together in harmony and prosper. I would like to also inform the House of a particularly notable woman by the name of Tanya Lee and her exceptional career in the charitable sector. Ms Lee has spent most of her working life assisting charitable enterprises in one way or another and has made tremendous contributions to our community. She has previously worked for the Advocates for Survivors of Child Abuse and Special Olympics, among many others. In 2008 she founded her own charitable organisation, the CorriLee Foundation, named after her grandmother, Corrie Lee. The organisation's core roles are partnering good causes with the right benefactors and hosting major charity fundraising events. To this end, the CorriLee Foundation has raised over $350,000 to assist a variety of charities, including the Mirabel Foundation, SANE Australia, Kids Helpline, Alzheimer's Australia and Dying with Dignity, to name a few. I have had the good fortune to be friends with Ms Lee for over 40 years. In that time I've seen firsthand her exceptional contribution to our community. It came as no surprise to me that Ms Lee was recently awarded the medal of the Order of Australia for her services to charity in the recent Australia Day honours. (Time expired) Solomon Electorate 99 16:07 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon It is our first week back in parliament, but it's been a busy start to 2019 up in the northern capital of Australia, in my electorate of Solomon. We had a visit very early in the year from the leader of the federal opposition, Bill Shorten, who came up to the Top End to announce that a federal Labor government will invest $220 million to enhance Kakadu as a tourist destination but also to secure the township of Jabiru, post the ERA mine. Tourism is a key economic driver in the Northern Territory, and this funding will secure Kakadu as the premium tourist destination that it is, not only for Territorians to visit but for our fellow Australians and people from all over the world. But there is a difference. The Prime Minister found out that the Leader of the Opposition was to make this announcement, so he flew up and made a Kakadu-light announcement over 10 years. That's not very helpful when Kakadu needs support now. What the Leader of the Opposition has committed to—from the very first budget—is that those funds will hit the ground and be starting to move Kakadu towards a secure future. This is all about locking in more visitors to Kakadu. Even though it is in the electorate of my good friend the member for Lingiari, a lot of tourism operators in my electorate very much depend on getting people from all around the world out to Kakadu. More money spent in the Territory, in Darwin, means more jobs for locals. While the federal Leader of the Opposition was in Darwin, I also took the opportunity to announce that we will invest in the City of Palmerston $5 million for an upgrade to the Palmerston swimming pool. The pool's almost 30 years old and it's leaking. It's in need of a serious upgrade. The people of Palmerston deserve a great quality facility there. It's important social infrastructure. With the Palmerston City Council and the Northern Territory government, we'll ensure that it continues to serve that great community of Palmerston for decades to come. I want to thank the mayor of Palmerston, Athina Pascoe-Bell, and her aldermen for their great work and for campaigning long and hard on that issue. I also want to thank my good friend, the member for Kingston, Amanda Rishworth, who made yet another visit to Darwin to talk about NT preschools, about three-year-old preschool, which is a great Labor policy, and also about some funding for the Darwin Toy Library. Giving kids the best possible start in life will make all the difference in the world, and I'm proud of the support Labor's giving the Territory. Menzies Electorate: Traffic Congestion 99 16:10 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies The No. 1 local issue in my electorate of Menzies is traffic congestion. In survey after survey and in conversations with constituents at the local shopping centres and with people who come to see me, traffic congestion is invariably identified as the No. 1 issue. Whether it's in Bulleen or Doncaster, Warrandyte or north of the river, in Eltham, Research or Warrandyte North, traffic congestion comes up time and time again as the No. 1 issue. The geography of Melbourne is such that a major divide between the northern suburbs and the south-eastern suburbs is the Yarra River. The regrettable fact is that there are very few crossings of the Yarra River. Once you move east of the city, there are only crossings at Clifton Hill and then out a little bit further at Abbotsford and Alphington and that area and then you go out to Heidelberg and Bulleen and then to Fitzsimons Lane and kilometres and kilometres further to Warrandyte. This means that there are therefore funnels and pinch points so far as traffic is concerned in moving north-south, and that of course also means, because of the layout of the river, traffic moving east-west in Melbourne. As I said, for my constituents in Bulleen, Templestowe and across the river in Eltham and further out at Warrandyte and Warrandyte North, this causes major congestion in the morning and afternoon of each and every day. I was delighted, therefore, to be able to announce, along with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population, last week, a $10 million fund to ease traffic congestion on the corridor between Eltham and Templestowe. I was pleased over the last few months to be able to work with the Shire of Nillumbik and the City of Manningham, which jointly identified this as a No. 1 project for the electorate. I was able to join with the minister, Alan Tudge, and the mayor of Nillumbik, Karen Egan, at one of the locations—one of the pinch points so far as this is concerned—last week. The two major pinch points are to the north of the river, at the northern end of Fitzsimons Lane, where that intersects with Main Road—this is a major congestion area every day—and then south of the river where Fitzsimons Lane intersects with Porter Street, Williamsons Road and other roads off there, which is another major intersection that is a major congestion point in the electorate. This $10 million will go a long way towards helping to ease the congestion on both sides of the Yarra River. Workplace Relations 100 16:13 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam In a few weeks time the Prime Minister will call an election. As workers go to the polls, they will have in their mind the very clear feeling that the price of everything is going up but their wages are not. The reason that they feel like that is that it's true. The average household has less disposable income now than when the coalition took power in 2013. The real reason why is persistently low wages growth. We're currently living in a period of time where the cost of essential items, such as energy and health care, including private health insurance, has skyrocketed while workers' wages are going nowhere. Workers in the private sector, who are 85 per cent of the workforce after all, are experiencing wages growth well below inflation. Instead of the government doing something to make matters better, they're actually acting to make matters worse. They had an opportunity last year to intervene and vote in favour of Labor's proposition to restore penalty rates. They rejected that and, as a result, hundreds of thousands of workers will have less wages today than they did when the government came into office. It's not just the level of wages that workers are going to be considering; it's the issue of job security. We're less than two months into 2019, and, in two separate workplaces in my electorate, workers have had to take protracted industrial action because they are concerned about their employer's attempts to decrease their job security in their workplaces. Workers do not do this lightly, but they have understood that, unless they take action to protect their job security, their future family security is on the line. The government has a blind spot when it comes to this issue, but Labor will act. If Labor forms government after the next election, we will see a situation where employers can no longer sign an agreement with the workforce on a Friday and, on a Monday, sack half of that workforce and replace them with a labour hire workforce on reduced wages. It's not right, but at the moment it appears to be legal. Labor will make this illegal. Labor will ensure that employers can use labour hire workers in a legitimate way, to fill legitimate short-term shortages or to deal with legitimate problems in their workplace, but that they cannot do it as a way of undercutting existing workers. It will be same job, same pay, labour hire or permanent. As workers go to the polls in a few months time, they'll have two things in their minds: what side of politics is going to ensure that wages keep pace with the price of living and what side of politics is going to ensure that they have decent job security? It's not the government side. Murray-Darling Basin 100 16:17 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee This is a constituency statement, so I want to reflect on some of the concerns that have been raised in my community about the fish kill in the lower Darling recently. Over the summer, we have seen over a million fish killed in the lower Darling. There seem to be a lot of people who are angry about it, and rightly so, but there is a lot of lack of knowledge around the two different systems, the Murray and the Darling. One of the easiest ways to describe them is that the Darling River is more like a tin roof—when you get a large rainfall event, you get a large downfall of water that comes down the Darling River. In contrast, the Murray River is more like a tank—you've got snow melt, you've got more winter based rainfall and you can hold that in Hume and in Dartmouth. Just to get an understanding of how the two different river systems work is very pertinent if you're going to understand what the issues are on the lower Darling. The Darling, of course, runs down to the Menindee Lakes. The Menindee Lakes are a high-evaporation storage, but they are the last storage on the Darling River. Under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, increasingly there have been efforts to find ways to offset water losses in order to achieve a certain amount of water that makes its way down into the Lower Lakes, Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert, and the Coorong. One of the offsets has been to say that we should drain the Menindee Lakes more quickly, to eliminate that evaporation, in order to have that water for the Lower Lakes. But unfortunately we are now seeing that there are greater consequences, because we are seeing drier times down the lower Darling. There has also been an effort to try and run water out of the lower Darling and down the lower Darling Anabranch. The question we've got to start to ask ourselves, if we're going to look after the fish stocks in the Menindee Lakes and the lower Darling, is: should we be trying to keep the anabranch as well as the Darling healthy? I think we can really only do one. And we really probably need to look at some engineering works in the Menindee Lakes that can hold more water in there. Whilst it is a high-evaporation storage, it is still the last storage on the Darling River and it still is important that we look after the fish stocks by holding some more water there. In the last few seconds I have, can I just offer some commentary. We've got to be very careful not to fall into the trap of bagging out cotton and rice in Australia and just say that permanent plantings are irrelevant, because we have a wetting and drying cycle. When it is very wet, we can of course grow annual crops, but, when it is dry, those annual crops don't get planted, and we prioritise things like almonds, vines for wine and table grapes, oranges, stone fruit and olives. My community needs to be very smart not to bag out one area out of the other. We can run this properly but I believe we need to hold more water back in Menindee and focus on the lower Darling, not the lower Darling Anabranch. (Time expired) Chifley Electorate: Community Volunteers, Cameron, Ms Lynette 101 16:20 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I proudly represent the mighty suburb of Willmot in the Chifley electorate. One of the best things about the area is the many huge-hearted, passionate and hardworking people living there. Over 15 years ago, nearly a dozen of these people attended a computer publishing class at the Willmot cafe. At the end of the course, they were set an assignment to create an imaginary newsletter. Using their newly acquired skills, they decided to do just that and created what became known as 'The Willmot Explorer', which, for years, as a bi-monthly publication, kept residents up-to-date on important issues. Underneath the title of the newsletter are the words 'Helping build a better community'. And that is exactly what they have been doing. From social issues, community event updates and handy numbers to quotes, jokes and recipes, The Willmot Explorer has been a valued resource delivering positive insights into the terrific things happening in the Willmot community. Sadly, last month we saw the final addition of The Willmot Explorer. My office will miss the drop-offs by the 'director of deliveries', George. I take this opportunity to thank each and every one of the volunteers for all their contributions over the 92 editions. In particular, I thank Pauline Garmonsway, Ann and Bill Dorman, Molly Ames, Robyn Reeves, Carol Brewer, Derek Jobson, George Baggaley, Jenny and George Richards, Robyn and John Shackleton, Bill and Gwladys Bratcher and the editor and 'el presidente', Lesley Dempsey. I give a very big thank you on behalf of a very grateful community. Our community recently said goodbye to Lynette Cameron, at a service in Minchinbury just the other week. I wish to not only pay respect to her but thank her. For over 20 years Lyn tirelessly gave her time volunteering to support women and the community of Tregear. Through her position on the Tregear Public School P&C, and as president of the Tregear Festival, she was highly valued and respected by many. I had the privilege of presenting Lyn with an MP's recognition award at the 2017 Coral McLean Awards for her contributions to our area. I had personally seen the amount of work she had done. Even after her six children left school Lyn continued a strong relationship with Tregear Public School, helping run the school's breakfast club. Life wasn't always easy for Lyn, who had to support six children and care for her ill mum on her own. But she was a fighter and she never gave up. Her good friend Ivy Roberson said, 'Whenever a family member or a friend needed something, Lyn was the first one to offer a helping hand.' Having battled with diabetes and health issues, we lost Lyn to a heart attack at the age of 72. My sincere condolences go out to Lyn's family, including her children, grandkids and great grandchildren. She will be sorely missed by many. Vale Lynette Cameron. La Trobe Electorate: Sikh Community 101 16:23 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe A few weekends back, I had the great privilege of attending the inauguration of the Sikh temple Siri Guru Nanak Darbar in Officer. I am very thankful to the organisers, who took the initiative to organise such an event for the first time in Australia. All communities can come regardless of their religion, colour or race. I would like to acknowledge the great contribution of the Sikh community, which has worked tirelessly to find a permanent place of worship, a 'gurdwara'. I congratulate the entire Sikh and Indian community and acknowledge the efforts of all the volunteers, especially Manpreet Kang, Mandeep Singh, Harjinder Kaur, Ravner Kaur, Harpreet Singh, Sukhwinder Singh Sandhu, Avtar Singh and Harman Singh. The three-day-long event also celebrated the birthday of the 10th Sikh, Guru Gobind Singh. The three days saw the footfall of around 600 people, including about 60 people from other Australian communities. I was delighted to see so many volunteers from our local area and various organisations visit the temple, and they were full of praise for the Sikh community. The event saw representatives from the Cardinia Shire Council, Need for Feed, Cardinia Interfaith Network, Cardinia Gujarati Association, Casey Multi-Faith Network, Upper Beaconsfield Conservation Group, Rotary Club of Pakenham, Pakenham RSL, Lakeside Residents Group, Cardinia Food Movement, Cardinia Shire Council's culturally and linguistically diverse advisory group, the Sudanese community, the Ahmadiyya Muslim community and members from various Indian communities. I was delighted to see that the temple has a congregation of members from Sikh and Indian communities in Officer, Pakenham, Clyde, Cranbourne, Beaconsfield and Berwick. The community's journey has been one of setting up the temple from 2013 to 2019. I was touched by the volunteers and the kids, who sang religious hymns. I'm very proud to see that the Sikh community has a strong collaboration with other local community organisations. We'll keep working with them into the future to achieve each other's visions. Noteworthy among them are Need for Feed, Cardinia Food Movement, Living Learning Pakenham, Cardinia Shire Council, Cardinia Gujarati Association, Cardinia Interfaith Network and so many others. The Sikh community is already doing a lot of community work with the south-east community by not only helping the community but also working on the food van project to provide food to needy people in and around the electorate of La Trobe. Keep up the great work. Tasmania: Housing Affordability 102 16:26 Mr HART 263070 Bass I rise to speak today about a disturbing increase in the number of constituents approaching my office for assistance in locating housing—in particular, public housing. Prime Minister Scott Morrison wants to give tax cuts to the big banks and to the top end of town instead of funding services that ordinary Tasmanians need. Tasmanians are waiting longer to access health care through our public hospital system. State public servants are seeking reasonable increases in their wages and incomes, trying to match increases in all the expenses that average families have to meet. There are still people for whom access to health care, education and basic government services is, in a word, academic. These are people who have children. These are people trying to live fulfilling lives, but they cannot if they cannot get access to housing. We think of homelessness as representing a group of people almost in the abstract. We can fail to think of them as individuals—people entitled to dignity and safety. Public housing should be available, particularly for those who are assessed with urgent needs. These people are placed on a waiting list and have been supposedly allocated priority. But what sort of priority is this? The waiting list now exceeds two years. What of the constituent who approached my office for assistance with obtaining housing for him and his two-year-old child? This man, Troy, has been allocated accommodation through the public housing system. The organisation administering this public resource gave him notice to vacate his property because they intended to renovate the property. He will be homeless by the end of February. Time and time again I have constituents approaching my office for assistance with similar stories—parents with young children who want to ensure that they do not drag their children to unfamiliar schools, exposing their children to additional stress and dislocation. Rebecca is a single mum of four children. She's a full-time nursing student. She applied with Housing Tasmania last year, and no suitable properties were available. She camped with her children before going into emergency accommodation. She secured a private rental with no assistance from Housing Tasmania or, indeed, from the minister's office. There are constituents who've sought public housing in order to re-establish connections with their children who are within the child protection system. There are people who are couch surfing, living in tents and subject to the risk of violence, theft of their belongings and further stress and anxiety. There are no time frames given for these people to be allocated suitable properties. They just have to wait. This is not good enough. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I thank the member for Bass for his contribution. If no member objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes. San Remo Channel Challenge, Gordon, Mr Michael 102 16:29 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan The inaugural Michael Gordon trophy was to be presented last Saturday at the end of the San Remo Channel Challenge. Michael died tragically on 3 February last year whilst competing in the Cowes classic. I don't think anybody can say it better than it's been said here. Michael was the inaugural winner in 1985 as a 30-year-old. We knew him as The Age journalist. His wife, Robyn Carter, was there on Saturday; his son, Scott, was there; his daughter was there; and young Harry was there also. Michael's involvement in the San Remo Channel Challenge over a period of three decades is being perpetually celebrated through a memorial trophy that has been struck in his honour, to be presented annually to the winner of the men's senior open category at the event. Event organiser Ron Nicholson, of the Woolamai Beach Surf Life Saving Club, was fond of catching up with Michael for a cold beer and a chat after each event. He feels that the memorial trophy is a way for his friends from this aspect of his life to celebrate the very fond memories they all have of a quietly spoken mate with a warm smile, a fellow traveller of the sea with a big heart. All friends and fans of Michael's were welcome to join the celebration of his memory at San Remo last Saturday. The tragic part was that it was cancelled due to shocking weather. As Ron Nicholson said, 'A third of you will swim this quite well. A third of you will struggle. The rest will have to be rescued.' There were 600 competitors who were about to go across the water. Not a day goes by when I don't think of Michael. That's known. But Michael was a huge competitor. I'm looking at a photo from when we laid a wreath for him last year at this particular event. He was a great competitor. It was lovely to see his family there. Scott had about 30 of his mates there with him to swim in this race last Saturday. It was very disappointing for all of them that they weren't able to compete, but they're going back there on 9 March, when the event will be repeated and the trophy will be delivered to the winner of the men's senior event. Michael was a lover of people. The last time I saw him, he was moving amongst the crowd of swimmers before the event at Cowes with this huge smile because he was back in his place of comfort and pleasure with his mates all around him. And Bron said, 'Pull over and talk to him.' I said, 'I can see him later,' but I didn't get to see him later. Michael, you will be commemorated in this memorial trophy for the San Remo Channel Challenge. Wills Electorate: Australia Day Awards, Wills Electorate: Stronger Communities Program 103 16:32 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and really congratulate those members of my community in my electorate of Wills who were inducted into the Order of Australia on Australia Day this year. These are really phenomenal and very inspiring, high-achieving individuals. They very well deserve the honours that they received on Australia Day. John Cunningham received a Medal of the Order of Australia in recognition for his many achievements as a local historian of the suburb of Brunswick. I'm glad our community has someone as dedicated as he is to preserve our rich history. Joe Ficarra received an OAM for his service to the Italian-Australian community and to local government as a councillor for many, many decades. Professor John Griffiths became an AM, a Member of the Order of Australia, in recognition of many achievements throughout his career as a musicologist and an accomplished academic. Susan Giles became an AM in recognition of her outstanding career in the arts as a director, writer and performer. Diana Travis received an OAM for her many achievements and contributions to the Indigenous community over her lifetime, particularly for campaigning in the 1967 referendum campaign. These people join a select group of inductees to our unique Australian Honours system, and they are indeed remarkable people. As their representative in this place, it is my absolute pleasure to thank them for their meritorious service to our community and to our nation. As well as individuals, there were a number of very well deserving community groups, sporting clubs and organisations in the electorate who received grants from the Stronger Communities Program. I had the great pleasure to support those nominations for those grants over that period. I want to congratulation the Glenroy Bowls Club, which received a grant for new seating, tables and sunshades. Baptcare received a grant to do some really important work called 'connecting up', a project that provides Sanctuary residents with wireless internet access and it is quite important for the welfare of people seeking asylum. It helps them connect with their loved ones during that period and it increases digital literacy and access to resources, helping them to rebuild their lives. The Glenroy Cricket Club got a new roller pitch and will have their first female cricket side next week. The Pascoe Vale footy club got an upgrade to modernise their club canteen and function room. The Pontian Community of Melbourne and Victoria got a new concrete floor. The Fawkner Tennis Club got a grant as well. CERES Joe's Market Garden got a new sprinkler system for the wonderful garden and organic produce that comes out of that wonderful farm in the middle of urban Melbourne. Youthworx of Youth Development Australia was granted a grant to help fit out classrooms to run digital media, graphic design and film classes for youth that are in trouble and seeking to get certification. The Central Pontian Association of Melbourne and Victoria also received a grant. There was Newlands and East Coburg Community Hubs. Girls Rock! received a grant for a lending library. The Brunswick Zebras Football Club, the West Coburg Football Club and the Hadfield Football Club —(Time expired) Dividend Imputation 103 16:36 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I rise to speak about 81-year-old Frank Mullins, who lives in Anglesea. Frank Mullins has worked hard all his life. I met with him recently to talk about his devastation in relation to Labor's proposed retiree tax. He will, under Labor's policy, if ever Labor were to be elected, of his income of $45,000 a year, lose $10,000 in franking credits by reason of his excess franking credits, denying him the refund from the ATO. This is a terrible and shocking attack on older Australians. Everywhere I go, right across the Corangamite electorate, people are more and more angry about this policy. I say to them, 'Take on board what the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer has said: if you don't like it, don't vote Labor.' Well, I'm saying the same thing to all Australians: if you don't like this proposal, do not vote Labor, because the Liberal and National government proudly stands by older Australians, retirees, self-funded retirees and also pensioners. I want to make a very important point: this does not just affect self-funded retirees—mainly low-income earners; it also impacts pensioners who took out a self-managed superannuation fund after 28 March 2018 or anyone with a self-managed superannuation fund who becomes a pensioner after 28 March 2018. In my electorate of Corangamite, an electorate I very proudly represent, there are 9,000 people who would be impacted—9,000 local residents. If we take in the adjoining electorate of Corio in the Geelong region, that makes a total of 15,000 local residents. The other myth that Labor is trying to put out there is that this will only hurt those on higher incomes. Well, in fact, the reverse is the case. This hits mainly people on low incomes. Eighty-four per cent of the individuals impacted are on a taxable income of less than $37,000, and 96 per cent of the individuals impacted are on a taxable income of below $87,000. It absolutely defies the fairness test because, if you're earning $200,000 a year and receiving a $7,000 dividend on your shares, you get the full benefit of the franking credits. This is a terrible and shocking policy. We condemn the Labor Party and proudly stand by all older Australians. Aged Care 104 16:39 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert It is no secret that under the watch of the Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison governments the aged-care sector is now in crisis. The LNP government's ineptness over the last five years has caused vulnerable older Australians, and their families, friends and carers to suffer dreadful distress. The waiting list for home care has grown to 127,000 older Australians, with many waiting more than a year to receive the care they desperately need. As of September 2018, 69,086 older Australians were without any home care package at all. This is an absolute disgrace. This government should be ashamed. Instead of using social media or media releases to attack Labor, the government needs to focus on action, find solutions, pass legislation and implement a plan to continue to drive long-term reforms focusing on the human rights of elderly Australians. Every single budget that the LNP government has delivered has included cuts to aged care. In his first budget the then Treasurer, now Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, cut $1.2 billion from aged care. These cuts saw funding go backwards for residents, staff cutbacks and insufficient funding to deliver quality services. We cannot expect adequate care if we're ripping the guts out of the sector. As of 30 June 2018 there were 323 people in North Queensland waiting to access home care packages. I have spoken with a resident in my community of Townsville whose mother passed away whilst waiting for her home care package. A few months after her mother passed away, she received the approval letter. Understandably, this was painful and frustrating not only for her daughter but for her family as well, who had been advocating for their mother for an extended period of time. I understand that the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care has already admitted that the government will need to consider other interventions to reduce the waitlist time, but, with older Australians waiting years for care, this action needs to happen now. Time has run out. This week the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety commenced in Adelaide. Labor welcomed this royal commission when it was announced in October last year; however, we still want to see progress on the dozens of reviews sitting on government desks with recommendations regarding aged care that haven't yet been implemented. My community in Townsville has a large ageing population. I have spoken with services that are overrun with residents' requests for assistance in areas such as advocacy and legal advice. Under this government, these services are not receiving the adequate funding that they need and deserve. Older Australians deserve better and won't be fooled by this LNP government, who have done nothing but cut aged-care funding. Quality aged care is a human right for our elderly Australians. Swan Electorate: Roads 104 16:42 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I thank the member for Boothby for allowing me to speak before her. I rise to talk about dangerous level crossings in my electorate of Swan, and the state Labor government's broken promise to my constituents on the issue. To make a comment on the previous speaker—talk about hypocrisy! First of all, we heard her talk about aged care and show all her love and affection for the elderly, yet they want to rip franking credits off grandparents, stealing the futures of their sons and daughters. The hypocrisy in that is just unbelievable. Back to my issue: at the level crossings in my electorate of Swan there have been 284 crashes in the last five years. On top of this is the congestion. When I took the previous minister, Minister Taylor, to see the issue at Wharf Street, a car sat at the lights for in excess of 20 minutes—or, as we observed, two smokes for the driver while he was sitting there waiting for the boom gates to come up. At the 2017 election, state Labor promised that two level crossings at Wharf Street and Oats Street would be removed by grade separation as priority 1 projects as part of its Metronet transport policy—not priority 2, 3 or 4; priority 1. This was promised by Labor candidates to voters in their election material. Two years later, no business case or budget submission has been completed or submitted by the state Labor government to Infrastructure Australia. You look surprised, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks. You shouldn't be. This is typical of Labor. This is despite record funding provided by the federal Liberal government to the McGowan state Labor government to fund its transport priorities. In the 2018-19 budget the federal Liberal government provided $3.2 billion for Metronet. The funding is there; Labor just needs to get on with it for the residents of my electorate of Swan. There is no excuse for inaction and the dangerous level crossings that they continue to ignore. But we have heard from the local Labor member, speaking to one of the residents, that you'll have to vote for them a second time to get the level crossings done. We have seen that Labor has managed to prioritise a Denny Avenue level crossing in Kelmscott, coincidently impacting the seat of the Darling Range, where there was a high-profile by-election last year—amazing, that! That's where all their focus went. But now we hear the Labor Party talking about a six-year time frame for Wharf Street and Oats Street. It's not good enough, but it's typical of Labor and the local member, Bill Johnston, who talks loud but does nothing. Cunningham Electorate: Australia Day Awards 105 16:45 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham I want to share with the chamber some amazing local people and their stories. On 22 January I attended the City of Wollongong Australia Day Awards. An amazing group of people were recognised, and I want to acknowledge that and put it on the record of this parliament. The citizen of the year is Dr Justin Yerbury. I have spoken in the House before about what an amazing man he is, as he does significant research into motor neurone disease whilst he battles the awful disease himself. The award was received to a standing ovation. People were so thrilled that he became our citizen of the year. The senior citizen of the year is Dr James Turner. Dr Turner is a GP. He started at Wollongong Hospital in 1957 and has been a very well loved GP. In particular, I want to acknowledge much of the work he did on the early antismoking campaigns in Australia. He has done a lot with drug and alcohol work and was a founding member of the suicide prevention group Dads in Distress. A wonderful senior citizen recognition. The young citizen of the year is Narayan Khanal. He was born in a Bhutanese refugee camp and was then resettled in Australia, living in the wonderful area of Wollongong. He's an inspirational advocate for young people. He's the founder of the Multicultural Society of UOW club. Through that club and advisory group they do tremendous work for young people. The community award went to Green Connect, an employment service that produces some wonderful sustainably produced food and employs former refugees, providing training, support and paid work. It's a great local organisation. The outstanding achievement award went to Andrew and Lyndell Clark, who are part of the fantastic Lego robotics tournaments that go on. They've had some international success with the teams that they've supported, inspiring young people to get into STEM. The outstanding innovation award went to plastICS, which is students from Illawarra Christian School working to educate students and families on the importance and impact of soft plastics on our environment. In 2018, they travelled to America and won the international Future Problem Solving Program championship. The arts and culture award went to Dulcie Dal Molin, a wonderful Port Kembla born and bred woman. People were very pleased that her work was recognised. The sport achievement award went to Peter Fitzgerald, who was one of the founders of the Men of League Foundation. In the time left, I will name those who got the Lord Mayor's special awards: Joe Alves, President of the South Coast Portuguese Association; Wendy Akhurst and Lynda Murphy from Keiraview Singers; Alfred Chidembo, who does great community work; Damien Cook; and Richard Tognetti. Live Animal Exports 105 16:48 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to update the House on a movement that a group of my constituents have put together to defend the live export trade, which is so critical to my electorate and the people who live and work in my electorate. Just to remind the House: last year we had some very disturbing footage that was shot by a whistleblower on a boat called Awassi Express. That particular voyage took place in August 2017. The consequence of that video footage coming to light was an investigation by the regulator, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, which led to the suspension of the licence of Emanuel Exports, who had previously exported around 80 per cent of the live sheep out of Australia—and, of course, a massive percentage of those sheep would have come out of my electorate. To update the House, since the new licence holder, RETWA, began voyages in November, we've seen five trips to the Middle East. That's around 350,000 sheep—so well down on an annual shipment of around 1.8 million. The results of those voyages have been outstanding. There hasn't been one voyage where the mortality has been over 0.3 per cent, which is around 200 sheep on a boatload of 70,000 plus. As a lifelong farmer myself, that would be a record that most farmers would be pretty happy with if they had those sheep in a paddock. So we've had good results from the exporters in the voyages that have taken place since the resumption of the trade. The exporters are trying very hard to be much more transparent. They've invited guests to come and watch the loading of the boat and to see the procedures that make sure those sheep are in the absolute best of hands. I was there last Tuesday. A Channel 9 film crew were there and they subsequently put a story to air. Other journalists were there as well—I know that there have been print journalists—and many politicians, including my colleagues, the member for Petrie and the member Hinkler, who travelled to Western Australia a couple of weeks ago to view the loading of the ship and how the sheep were handled and to give themselves some comfort that the industry is worthy of support. Emanuel Exports have appointed an animal welfare compliance officer, Holly Ludeman. Holly is a young vet, and her responsibility is to make sure that the welfare of those sheep is of the highest standard. I want to touch very briefly on the Sheep Collective, a group of industry organisations, such as the Shearing Industry Association and the Livestock and Rural Transporters Association, and farmer groups. I welcome to the House today Bindi Murray, who is a great friend of mine from Woodanilling. Bindi is a young farmer, with three kids. She caught the midnight express over here and today she's presenting to people around the House, and I welcome Bindi here today. Good Samaritan Inn, Orange Sky 106 16:51 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman Last week I visited the Good Samaritan Inn. This is an organisation in my electorate that provides emergency accommodation services to women fleeing family and domestic violence. The Good Samaritan Inn was started by the Good Samaritan Sisters. It's an organisation run by women for women. They've operated in Preston, on the smell of an oily rag, for over 20 years helping countless families escape the violence and setting them up for a new safe life. I saw how they placed the needs of their clients at the forefront of everything they do. While the women are safe in secure accommodation, the Good Samaritan Inn provides 24-hour practical and emotional services, including counselling, risk and safety support and access to Centrelink and court services like intervention orders and application support. It is this model that makes crisis housing so crucial. It brings women and children into a safe place and allows them the opportunity to rest, to recover and to plan for the rest of their lives. The women I spoke to said that this part was crucial. In fact, one woman said that the few days she spent at the crisis centre allowed her to clear her head, where before she was just filled with panic and worry. Crisis housing must be a part of any response to family violence. Ensuring women are safe while they plan how to leave a violent partner in a permanent way is incredibly important. But it is not just accommodation. Leaving a mum and kids in a lonely motel room is not the answer. They need the support of professionals in that terrible time. I note yesterday that Scott Morrison made a big song and dance, swooping in as the male saviour for women, when announcing funding for family violence. I know this is an important issue and we are pleased there was funding announced, but, to be clear, all the Prime Minister did yesterday was reverse the Liberals' own cuts to the housing and support services that women and children fleeing family violence relied on. The simple fact remains that the Liberals cut $44 million in annual funding for emergency housing in the 2014 horror budget. Labor is committed to ensuring women are able to end violent and abusive relationships as safely as possible. I thank the Good Samaritan Inn for the work they do. I'd also like to give a huge shout out to another fabulous organisation, Orange Sky, who this week are launching their mobile laundry service for the north-western suburbs of Melbourne. I'm sorry I'm missing your launch. If I were there I'd tell you how wonderful you are and what a great service you provide, helping homeless people get dignity and surety through being able to access a laundry service. This might seem like a small thing, a simple thing, but this does give a very important service to people who otherwise would not be able to access it. The co-founders, Nick and Lucas, have an incredible team of volunteers. Orange Sky provides free mobile laundry and shower services to people experiencing homelessness, but they also provide accommodation, friendly faces and much-needed conversation. Thank you very much for all you do. Boothby Electorate: Australia Day Awards 107 16:54 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby Today I would like to congratulate the recipients of the Order of Australia awards in the 2019 Australia Day honours within my electorate of Boothby. I am honoured to be able to congratulate this year's recipients and to recognise their contributions to our community. I acknowledge the following residents for their outstanding service. Professor Tara Brabazon was made a Member of the Order of Australia for her significant service to education, particularly to graduate and cultural studies. Mr David Gray was made a Member of the Order of Australia for his significant service to veterans and their families. Mr Ian Wall OAM was made a Member of the Order of Australia for significant service to the community. I've been fortunate to know Ian Wall and his wife, Pam, for some time. They are a wonderful team, and they support so many charities and causes in South Australia and further afield and do so with great generosity. Sincere congratulations to both Ian and Pam. I would also like to recognise Anthony Favretto and Jo-Anna Kenney, who were awarded an Australian Fire Service Medal. The following local residents were awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia in the 2019 Australia Day honours: Mrs Carol Boyle, for service to lawn bowls; Mr Peter Kemp, for service to baseball; Mr John Kenny, for service to the community; Mrs Glenda Bailey, for service to the community of South Australia; and Mr Geoffrey Thomas, for service to primary industry. Geoff has also worked tirelessly to raise funds for research into and awareness of motor neurone disease, which took the life of his wife, Mary, very cruelly and tragically, and I know that Mary would have been so proud of Geoff receiving this award. Each of these honours recipients is a dedicated and respected member of our community. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to each and every one of them for all they do. I'd also like to take this opportunity to recognise Mr Stanley Evans, who was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to the Parliament of South Australia. Stan and his wonderful wife, Barbara, have been great friends and supporters of mine as the member for Boothby and of so many others in our Liberal family, and I was delighted to see Stan awarded this honour. My local councils also recognised local volunteers at ceremonies on Australia Day, and I would like to congratulate the following recipients: City of Mitcham Citizen of the Year Mr Ian Steel; City of Marion Citizen of the Year Ms Emilie Ripinskis, Young Citizen of the Year Ms Chelsea Long, Sports Team of the Year Marion Football Club and Event of the Year Marion Markets; City of Holdfast Bay Citizen of the Year Mr Brian Bayliss, Young Citizen of the Year Mr Zel Whiting, Local Hero Mr Leslie Tucker, Community Recognition Award winner Ms Alyssa West and Event of the Year Glenelg Community Centre Seniors Lunch. Thank you to all of these residents and groups for the contribution they make to our community. Dobell Electorate: Coalmining 107 16:57 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell The Central Coast community has been let down by the Morrison government, following its reckless approval of the Wallarah 2 coalmine under our precious water catchment. My community deserves answers. If this speculative coalmine goes ahead, our water catchment is at risk from subsidence, water loss and potential contamination. Why has the Morrison government given approval to the mine when they know it poses a real threat to the security of our drinking water? The EPBC Act water trigger, introduced by the last Labor government, is to protect our water. When the safety and supply of the drinking water of some 350,000 people is at stake, surely the highest level of scrutiny and caution must be exercised by the federal environment minister. KORES, the foreign company planning to mine under our valleys, has acknowledged the subsidence and water loss this mine will cause. Its solution? To treat the water generated by the mine, and then put that treated mine water back into our drinking water catchment! The people of the Central Coast living in Dobell and in Robertson cannot believe that Minister Price and the Prime Minister expect them and their children and families to drink treated mine water. And, if something does go wrong, can my community be expected to rely on a for-profit mining company to stop extracting coal and put our water supply before its profits? Is the environment minister truly satisfied that, without even producing a methodology, a mining company can be trusted to treat mine water to a potable standard? Can anyone dispute the expert opinion that this mine would lower the water table under the Dooralong and Yarramalong valleys by at least 20 per cent? When the mine was last referred to the federal government under the EPBC water trigger in 2013, the Independent Expert Scientific Committee of that time concluded that the miner had not done enough work to prove the project's safety. In 2016 the IESC, with some newly appointed members on the committee, came to a different conclusion. The committee's advice may have changed, but the situation for the Central Coast community has not. Why are the federal Liberal government and the New South Wales Liberal government putting a speculative coalmine before the security of our drinking water? The New South Wales Liberals have earmarked our region for rapid population growth by 2030. The Central Coast already has a small and stressed water catchment. We cannot afford the devastation this longwall coalmine will cause coupled with a drought. During the millennium drought the coast dam levels dropped to below 10 per cent. Over 50 per cent of the water in our dams comes from aquifers in the valleys where the mine will be located. If those aquifers are damaged by this coalmine, our water supply is at risk. Our council is just today introducing water restrictions, as our dam levels sit at 50 per cent. Our community has been abandoned by Minister Price's reckless decision to approve this coalmine. The safest way to stop this mine and to protect our water supply is to elect a New South Wales Labor government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 Are there any further constituency statements? If not, we will move to the next item. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 108 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Employment 108 17:01 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo There is a lot of talk in this place about jobs. The Prime Minister has declared that he will create 1.25 million jobs. Australians have the right to be sceptical and call him on that if we look at this government's track record, the jobs that have been created so far in the last six years and what's actually happening in employment, in the jobs sector and in industrial relations more broadly. Today the gig economy exists, with the impacts that that is having on the jobs that are being created. Today the Minister for Women referred to the greater number of women who are now working. More women are working, yes. That is a fact. Partly it is because we have more people in Australia, so therefore, by percentages, we have more women working. But we need to consider the nature of the work that women are engaged in. An unfortunate development that has coincided with the introduction of the NDIS has been the creation of zero-hour contracts. Once upon a time, people working in this sector, many of them women, were working for one organisation, working part time or full time. Today, when you chat to a lot of people working in this sector, you find they're no longer just working for one company; they're working for, quite possibly, three. They may be signed up with three agencies with zero-hour contracts. They're not guaranteed a set number of hours, and, therefore, are having to work for three agencies. That could be counted as three jobs, when clearly it's not even enough to make one full-time job. This morning I got the opportunity to meet with seafarers on the lawns out at the front of Parliament House. Once upon a time the shipping industry was a proud industry for Australia. These were good jobs, generational jobs. A number of the seafarers I met talked about how their father was a seafarer and their grandfather was a seafarer, but they don't know if there will be seafaring jobs for their children. They've been sacked by some big multinational companies. They export coal. They're proud of that fact. But they've been replaced with a foreign crew. If only we could focus on those jobs. They are some of the 1.25 million jobs that we could create in this country. Those people would like to be at work today but they were here. They were here for question time and they were out on the lawns, because their jobs no longer exist. There has been a really sad development in Australia, in our economy and in our broader society, where we have employers and industry for the first time in many generations viewing people not as workers, not as people in our community, but as commodities of labour—a unit price on a balance sheet. Time and time again, we are seeing industry and employers go for the cheapest price. In this country, we have a growing problem with underemployment. I referred to the women who are working in NDIS as well as a number of other industries, forced to sign up to two or three agencies to try and make up that full-time or part-time job. We have a problem with casualisation in our country, whether you call it casualisation or labour hire. People who were once directly employed are sacked, only to be offered their job back with the labour hire company. And far too often it's on less money. This week we also acknowledge that it's 600 days since that happened in Gippsland at the Longford gas plant, where ExxonMobil sacked, through their contractor, all of their local workforce—people who were living in Gippsland, living in Sale and living in Longford—and replaced them with a predominantly fly-in fly-out or drive-in drive-out workforce, paying them much less. This isn't the only place. It's been happening throughout our resources sector. It's a problem in mining in Queensland. It's the reason why Labor were motivated to announce our policy about same job, same pay—to at least guarantee that two workers standing side-by-side doing the exact same job with the exact same responsibilities would be paid the same. Sure, there will be a need for some labour hire or casualisation in fluctuations, but it should not be every job at a workplace. Casualisation and labour hire have always been regarded as that extra you need during a peak period. Today, labour hire has become the norm, and this is why there are growing concerns amongst workers, communities and industry about the way in which labour hire is being misused in our country. I also want to highlight—as we've been on a break, in coming back—that the other major problem that's occurring is the gross underpayment of so many workers. It's as if today, if you're a young person, you have to accept that your first job will be a job where you're underpaid and exploited. We just have to look to some of the reports in our media about how widespread the underpayment of Australian workers is. I want to start by acknowledging that this is really just the tip of the iceberg. These are people that workers have either pursued individually through the courts or pursued through their union, or the Fair Work Ombudsman has pursued these employers for not paying people properly. A Sydney hair salon owner was penalised $77,000 for underpaying a teenage apprentice in her first job. She underpaid the teenage apprentice more than $14,000. That was reported just today. A Sydney pub empire underpaid staff by $100,000. In this claim, 31 former workers complained of being underpaid. The worker who organised them was sacked for organising them to speak out about their underpayment. That was reported on 5 February. On 1 February it was reported that an Indian cook who recently was in a legal battle with a former employer for being underpaid $90,000 was looking like he was going to be deported, after his 457 visa was cancelled. He was found to be driving taxis before and after working at the Indian restaurant. When you're underpaid so significantly, it's no wonder you've taken out a second job. That case is still before the courts. Sushi outlets, another case that hit the media in January and in February, underpaid workers $694,000. Ninety-four workers across the outlets had been underpaid from April 2015 to July 2016. This is just a short period. How long has this underpayment gone on for? In this case, the Fair Work Ombudsman is involved and working with these workers and with the department because many of them have question marks over their visas. Some of them are here as international students; others are here on backpacking holidays. We know all too well in this place that there is too much exploitation of people who are guest workers. Also, today it has been reported that Rebel Sport, Supercheap Auto and Macpac underpaid store managers about $32 million over the past six years by not applying overtime rates properly. Another one to highlight is Melbourne's Crown casino's 24-hour cafe, which has been fined by the Fair Work Ombudsman for breaching the Fair Work Act by underpaying 54 workers a combined total of $73,000. These are significant amounts, and for these workers who are being underpaid it is the difference between paying your rent on time or being able to put petrol in your car. But this is a deliberate act by some of these employees, who have not worked with the Fair Work Ombudsman when notified of their breaches. Everyone accepts that the award system and agreements can be complicated. But, if you're notified by Fair Work of a breach, you should act to address it. But, in these cases, and in so many others, it has happened. This is theft. If it were an employee stealing from an employer, there'd be an investigation by the police, there'd be a possible prosecution and that particular worker could end up in jail. Yet, in this country, it is a civil matter if an employer rips off an employee. There are so many challenges that we have in the industrial relations space, whether it be the underemployment of people, the underpayment of people, the lack of action on the gig economy or the lack of action on labour hire. We need a real plan to tackle this. Western Australia: Roads 109 17:11 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney There's $1.2 billion in the federal budget for Western Australia. This money is available right now, ready to fund the construction of Roe 8 and Roe 9. Roe 8 and Roe 9 is the critical missing link in Perth's long-planned highway system. It would be a road that would make my community safer and create jobs. But, instead of fixing congestion, the WA state Labor government refuses to access this federal funding and refuses to build Roe 8 and Roe 9. Not only have Labor backed the noisy protesters over the local community; they're now spitefully and recklessly going further, introducing legislation in the WA parliament to delete the Roe 8 road reserve forever. It's one thing not to access the $1.2 billion in federal funding to build Roe 8 and Roe 9 but it's another thing to spitefully and recklessly delete this road reserve forever, stopping future governments from building this road. It's not just any local road. This is one of the most critical links between Perth's freeway network and WA's main port of Fremantle. This is Labor lunacy at its best. The land for Roe 8 and Roe 9 was reserved in the Metropolitan Region Scheme in 1963. Labor have calculated that they can change the Metropolitan Region Scheme by legislation to avoid community consultation and delete Roe 8 and Roe 9 by stealth. Legislation skips the usually extensive community consultation process. It skips the Planning Commission's review of all of the community's submissions that would usually be made and skips the Planning Commission's consideration of the merits, real or not, of these changes. Due process normally takes around two years, but Labor want to delete this important road reserve without any important community consultation because they know what the locals in my community think. They don't want to hear that, because it will tell them a very different story to that of the noisy protesters to whom they're listening. Last week I launched a petition to give my community a voice on this very significant change to Perth's road network. The petition can be found at petition.org.au/Roe8—a petition telling Labor not to delete the Roe 8 road reserve forever and telling Labor to build Roe 8 and Roe 9 to fix local traffic congestion. Over 1,300 people signed the petition in the first few days. They want their message heard by the Labor state government. But the Labor Party has form in this regard. Labor has recklessly deleted key road reserves, like the Fremantle Eastern Bypass, before in WA. Labor sold off the road reserve, causing ongoing local traffic congestion and pushing cars and trucks onto local roads. If Labor does it again with Roe 8 and Roe 9, trucks and cars will have no option in the future but to continue travelling through our suburbs, past homes, past businesses, past schools, past parks and right through the guts of our community. My community shouldn't be subject to traffic and delays because of Labor's reckless decisions. So you might ask: why are Premier Mark McGowan and WA Labor refusing to access this $1.2 billion in federal government funding to make my community safer and to create jobs in WA? Well, it is going to impact on 0.49 per cent of the Beeliar Regional Park—that is, less than one per cent. Beeliar Regional Park is an interesting mix of wetlands in some parts. Some parts are degraded and some parts have weed filled scrub. In other parts there is a barren easement for the high-voltage power line, where the road was designed to go. There are nice parts of the Beeliar Regional Park, and those nice parts will be made even nicer with the project's $45 million worth of investment in environmental protections, weed control and better access to the public. The Roe 8 and Roe 9 project would avoid 15 sets of traffic lights for cars and trucks. In fact, 7,000 trucks per day and 74,000 cars per day would avoid those 15 sets of traffic lights, saving 450,000 cubic tonnes of CO2 emissions. I argue that building Roe 8 and Roe 9 has very positive environmental impacts for our community. But critics, including the member for Fremantle, argue that this road isn't needed. Labor believe that the road goes to nowhere—and it is quite unusual for a local member to say they represent a place called 'Nowhere'. Some believe that Labor were going to shut down the Fremantle port, that they were going to move the industry from the existing Fremantle port to Cockburn Sound. But the Fremantle port is actually here to stay. The Labor Party, despite wanting people to think that the port is moving, said at point 92 of their 2017 policy document that they would 'maintain Fremantle port as an operational port'. And point 94 of their policy document said they would 'improve the management of truck movements to and from the Fremantle port'. Importantly, at point 99 they said they would 'implement the findings of the Fremantle port's truck productivity study to increase the hours and operation of the container parks'. So don't believe for a minute that the WA Labor government was moving the port. The new port that the community was led to believe would be constructed would require dredging, construction and the removal of seagrass in the Cockburn Sound. These are listed as environmental considerations in Labor's own port study released in December last year. The fine print in that report is quite interesting. The study into the new port, by the Westport Taskforce, is entitled What have we found so far? This is Labor's own report, and it is a report on exactly why Roe 8 and Roe 9 should and must be built. It is a blueprint for why WA Labor should access the $1.2 billion available to build this important road. It confirms again that the Fremantle port is here to stay and that there is plenty of room to grow. Let me quote from page 28 of this report. In 2017-18 there were just under 770,000 20-foot equivalent units, or containers. Over the long-term containerised trade forecasts, it is to reach 3.1 million containers in 2067-68. Fremantle has the physical capacity, within its existing footprint, to handle a substantial increase of container trade, the report says. On page 41 of the report it says that if the port infrastructure, road and rail linkages are developed and expanded to their optimal capacities, Fremantle, in conjunction with Kwinana and Bunbury, would likely have the capacity to collectively handle the strategic freight needs of WA for the next hundred years. Labor's report also confirms that key roads to the port will limit the port and limit WA's success unless they are upgraded. Page 6 of the report talks about upgrading and enhancing the existing road and rail networks to unlock the potential of the Fremantle port. With the increased government subsidies, freight by rail is only 16 per cent—84 per cent of freight moved in and out of Fremantle port is by road. According to the report, 90 per cent of that 84 per cent is from the east and south, clogging High Street, Leach Highway, Kwinana Freeway to Roe Highway, and Roe Highway east. Page 5 of the report says that access to the port of Fremantle is under pressure at Leach Highway and Stock Road—and don't we know it. The solution here is to build Roe 8 and Roe 9. Page 38 of this report, a study of Fremantle's land transport and port capacity in 2014, considered the land transport network that was proposed at the time and found that a throughput of around 2.1 million containers could be achieved by major improvements to the land transport network and a number of other measures, like increasing port hours. What's really infuriating is that the Labor Party know that they're committed to the continuation of Fremantle port but they're cutting off the important project that will see that port remain, that would see 74,000 cars and 7,000 heavy trucks per day taken off local roads in my community. Not only are they not accepting those important funds to build this road; they're actually deleting the road reserve forever, limiting future governments from the construction of the road to service this port. No wonder the MUA in WA has cut loose from the Labor Party state government, because, by building this road, you'd create jobs in a state that needs them most. Music Industry 111 17:21 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie We don't often think about music in this place, yet, outside these walls, people's days are filled with music as they go to work, go about their work, go out to relax or head home. Hopefully, there's a heavy dose of Australian music in that mix. The Australian music industry contributes nearly $6 billion to our economy. The live music industry alone supports around 64,000 jobs in Australia. I have to confess that my son is one of those people who works as a professional musician. Given the amount of time we spend here talking about sport, people might be surprised to know that Australians attend live music more often than they attend sport. It's a thriving industry and one that governments should provide smart, modest support to, to help the industry grow, just like we should for other important industries like manufacturing or agriculture. There has been nothing from this Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government that indicates even the slightest interest in the music industry. At a New South Wales government level, I've been disappointed at the unwillingness of the Liberals to listen to expert advice on harm minimisation that could not only save lives but also save music festivals, to the point we're at now where Byron Bay Bluesfest, among others, is starting to look outside the state. While there is much that can be done at a state level, we're concerned about what a federal government can do to support the growth of an industry. It's Labor who will deliver the most comprehensive music policy of any Australian government if we are elected. We want to see more Australians making music, listening to it and seeing it performed, because not only does that strengthen our own culture and show the world who we are but it also leads to more Australians having stable jobs in a thriving industry. The plus of the digitally connected world is that Australian music can be heard anywhere, but getting to places to perform it live and to be known is still expensive. Labor will provide an additional $10 million to Sounds Australia to help showcase Australia's music talent in not just the US and Europe but also emerging markets like South America and Asia. We'll also get Sounds Australia to keep working with state and local governments to reduce the barriers to live performance at home. Under Labor, the APRA SongMakers program will get a $7.6 million boost so music teachers can do more work in schools but also in new music hubs, which will be refurbished places like community centres, to provide soundproof music studios. What used to happen in parents' garages—not always loved by the neighbours—can be more difficult these days. It's hard to make music if you don't have a space to do it in. We'll also better recognise music teachers' vital role through an expansion of the current ARIA Music Teacher Awards. Labor appreciate that music managers play a key role in the industry and in supporting artists, so we'll fund them to train new and emerging managers. The stories that musicians and managers have shared with me as part of the current parliamentary inquiry into the sustainability of the music industry, which is still underway, and the stories that I've heard from my own children and their musician friends, highlight for me the challenges of working in an industry where a full-time pay-as-you-go job is pretty much non-existent and the financial side is a challenge. We will provide extra funding to Support Act, which is a charity providing financial support and a really valuable mental health service for musicians and people in the industry. Also working in my electorate is the Nordoff Robbins charity, a music therapy provider which takes music into aged-care homes, including in the Blue Mountains, and provides one-on-one, group and music therapy sessions for kids and adults of all abilities. Additional funding for Nordoff Robbins will give more people access to their life-changing therapy. There's a range of other initiatives that we'll bring in, including a ban on the use of automated bots to buy tickets, limits on how much scalpers can charge, a commitment to protect copyright—really the basis of a musician's life, especially composers—and restoration of $83.7 million to the ABC over three years to help stabilise a public broadcaster that does so much to promote and play Australian music. Venues, cafes, pubs, clubs, universities, concert halls and even stadiums will benefit from our immediate 20 per cent tax deduction in the first year on the value of a new asset worth more than $20,000. This is a whole range of strategies to help keep the music industry not just surviving but growing. As someone who's electorate is home to many people who earn their living from the music industry, I know that this sector, overlooked for the last five years, can do great things with a little bit of help. Only Labor will deliver a policy that supports the growth of the Australian music industry. In my first speech to this place 2½ years ago, I spoke about the belief that we needed to do something different in the way that we deliver mental health services. There's been a lot of words spoken in this chamber since then by many people, but the reality remains that the gaps in how we prevent mental illness, treat it, support those with episodic or chronic mental ill health and their families are still too great—and we all know it. The level of mental ill health amongst young people is still a huge concern, despite the best efforts of people working in the sector. With half of mental disorders presenting in people before the age of 14 and 75 per cent before the age of 25, targeting children and young people is critical. For families in the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains there is no dedicated paediatric service, not even at the nearby Nepean Hospital—nowhere for children under 16 to be treated close to home. Sadly, suicide remains the leading cause of death of young people. I have conversations every single day about mental health with people who live in my electorate. I remain concerned that we still have a hospital-centric and fragmented approach to mental illness. We haven't invested enough in alternatives to hospitalisation, which leaves the mental health teams focusing on providing care to people only once they are extremely unwell. That is why, when Labor was last in office, I was so pleased to be involved in the opening of the first headspace for our region, in Penrith. In May 2013, I joined then minister for mental health, Mark Butler, in opening a site that was the first step in providing a no-wrong-door approach for young people concerned about their mental health. When Labor was in government we invested around $200 million over five years and we expanded the Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre services that are delivered by headspace. During the 2016 election, Labor committed to keeping open headspaces in current locations as well as establishing new ones. We remain committed to a headspace model and to expanding their reach. A headspace in Penrith isn't enough to reach all the young people in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury. So I'm very pleased to see that, after years of the community asking for this, Parramatta Mission, who manages headspace, is providing a youth outreach mental health service. This program will be welcomed by people in the Hawkesbury, like Stephen Lillie, from the Hawkesbury District Health Service, and Megan Ang, from the Hawkesbury council, who were involved in the roundtables I held early in my term and have continued to advocate and connect service providers. The YES Program is for 12- to 25-year-olds who have or are at risk of developing a serious mental illness. It's designed to focus on young people who fall between the current criteria for headspace and the other criteria for New South Wales state mental health services. That gap is wide. It's early intervention that involves family and carer support services and continual engagement with the young person's GP, such a vital piece of the mental health puzzle. It is working with psychologists, social workers and mental health nurses—who, personally, I think are some of the heroes of our mental health system—and peer support coaches, who have lived experience of mental health. A young person can refer themselves directly to YES, as can family and friends, GPs and school counsellors, and I'd encourage young people and their families to reach out. When a young person is experiencing mental ill-health and they're attempting to seek help, there is a small window to intervene and help them and their loved ones. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17 : 30 to 18:30 18:30 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 For the information of members, the time allowed under the standing orders for the grievance debate expired at 6.02 pm. Accordingly, 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 18:30 QUESTIONS IN WRITING 113 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Taxation (Question No. 1008) 113 1008 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 14 August 2018: (1) What is the Government's response to Recommendation 2.6 of the Productivity Commission report Shifting the Dial: 5 Year Productivity Review (Report No. 84, 24 October 2017).(2) Has the Government considered freezing the indexation of the spirits excise and if so, why has such a freeze not been proceed with.(3) On a year-by-year basis, has the average tax paid on spirits (as a percentage of total price) increased, decreased, or remained constant over the last 5 years and how does this compare to the average tax paid (as a percentage of total price) on beer and wine over the same period.(4) What is the Government's estimate of the dollar contribution of (a) gin distillers, and (b) non-gin spirit distillers to (i) Australia's economy, (ii) South Australia's economy, and (iii) the economy of the electoral division of Mayo.(5) What is the Government's estimate for (a) percentage growth; and (b) inflation-adjusted dollar growth, in the Australian distillery industry.(6) What is the Government's planned spending over the forward estimates on education about alcohol. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the member's question is as follows: (1) The Government has not formally responded to the report. The Government is not currently considering moving to a uniform volumetric taxation. (2) The Government has no plans to change the current indexation arrangements. Excise rates are adjusted for growth in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) twice yearly to ensure excise rates keep pace with price inflation over time. (3) The Government is unable to measure trends in the average tax paid as a proportion of price on alcoholic products. This is because businesses that lodge Excise returns or Business Activity Statements (for the wine equalisation tax) do not report price information for the products they sell. (4-5) The Government does not produce estimates of the dollar contribution of gin distillers and non-gin spirit distillers to Australia's economy, or the growth in the distilling industry. (6) Government spending on education about alcohol is reported under Outcome 2, Program 2.4 of the Department of Health's 2018-19 Portfolio Budget Statement (Preventative Health and Chronic Disease Support) within the Drug and Alcohol Program. The Drug and Alcohol Program covers treatment services, prevention and research activities, which include but are not limited to education on alcohol. At the 2018-19 Budget Government spending on Preventative Health and Chronic Disease Support was estimated at approximately $1.5 billion over the forward estimates period, with spending on the Drug and Alcohol Program estimated to make up around half of this total. Through the Drug and Alcohol Program the Government has provided funding to support dedicated alcohol related education initiatives focusing on the risks associated with consumption of alcohol during pregnancy (including the Women Want to Know and Pregnant Pause programs), the revision of the National Risky Drinking Guidelines and the GoodSports program. Alcohol-related information is also a core component of broader Alcohol and Other Drug related prevention and information programs and activities, including the Positive Choices program which provides access to evidence-based information targeting parents, teachers and students. Medicare Benefits Schedule (Question No. 1020) 113 1020 Mr Zappia HWB asked the Minister for Human Services and Digital Transformation, in writing, on 15 August 2018: Has Medicare Australia ever passed data that is linked or identifiable with the (a) Medicare Benefits Schedule, or (b) Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, to law enforcement agencies without a court order; if so, (i) how many times, and (ii) for what reasons? Mr Keenan E0J The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The disclosure of Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) related information is governed by section 130 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 and section 135A of the National Health Act 1953 respectively. Those provisions impose strict limitations on the circumstances in which Medicare and PBS information can be disclosed to third parties for purposes unrelated to the administration of Medicare, the PBS and other specified health programmes, or without the consent of the consumer. The Department of Human Services (the Department) may only disclose Medicare or PBS‑related information for non-programme purposes where that disclosure is specifically authorised under the legislation. In the vast majority of cases, such disclosures are made under provisions that authorise disclosures which are considered to be necessary in the public interest. Public interest disclosures are only made in accordance with guidelines that were issued by the Secretary of the Department of Health in 2003, and those guidelines cite the release of information to law enforcement agencies for the purposes of investigating serious criminal activity as an example of the sort of disclosure that would be necessary in the public interest. In the 2017-18 financial year, the Department released identifiable Medicare and/or PBS information to law enforcement agencies without a court order on 2,902 occasions. It should be noted that this figure may include duplicate requests and "follow-up" requests. Whilst the Department specifies the reason for the release on each occasion in a public interest certificate (for example "the enforcement of laws"), the Department does not record the specific reasons for release (for reporting purposes). However, the Department typically releases information to assist law enforcement agencies in the investigation of serious crimes such as murder, sexual assault, serious drug offences and major fraud. Pursuant to guidelines issued by the Privacy Commissioner under section 135AA of the National Health Act 1953, the Department is requiredto report to the Privacy Commissioner annually about its dealing with Medicare or PBS claims information which has been 'linked'. Linked information is Medicare and PBS claims information about the same patient, which has been combined or merged, or 'old' Medicare or PBS claims information (being information older than five years) ordinarily held by the Department of Health in a de-identified form which has been re-identified by the Department for specific purposes. In 2016-17, the Department reported five instances of disclosing linked Medicare and PBS claims information to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of enforcing the criminal law. The Department is currently in the process of compiling its report to the Privacy Commissioner for the 2017-18 financial year. Braddon Electorate: Telecommunications (Question No. 1035) 114 1035 Ms Keay 262273 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications and the Arts, in writing, on 16 August 2018: In respect of the Government's commitment during the campaign for the by-election in the electoral division of Braddon on 2 July 2018 to provide $700,000 to the West Coast Council to improve mobile phone coverage in that region, will this be honoured; if not, why not; if so, (a) from which program will these funds come, and (b) when will the funding be delivered. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the member's question is as follows: The Government has announced $700,000 in federal funding to improve mobile network capacity throughout the western region of Tasmania. The Commonwealth contribution will be realised by savings from the Mobile Black Spot program. The timing will depend upon settling the details of the project with Telstra which is ongoing. Department: Office space (Question No. 1082) 114 1082 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 12 September 2018: In 2017-18, what sum was spent in the Minister's ministerial office on (a) indoor plants, (b) office decorations, (c) artwork, and (d) office furniture. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: a) In 2017-18, my Department spent $727.08 (GST exclusive) on indoor plants for my office. The below table also compares departmental expenditure on indoor plants for Ministers' offices in 2017-18 to expenditure in 2012-13. Expenditure data is for all Portfolio Minister's offices in each year. Indoor plants expenditure b) and c) Nil. d) Please refer to the response provided to Parliamentary Question on Notice 1073. Department of Health: Travel (Question No. 1112) 114 1112 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 12 September 2018: In 2017-18, what sum was spent on (a) domestic travel, and (b) international travel, for departmental staff and of this, (i) on what dates, and to what locations, did the Minister travel, (ii) how many departmental staff accompanied the Minister on this travel, and (iii) for what purpose did the Minister travel. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Domestic travel costs for the 2017-18 financial year for departmental employees. (i) My travel dates and locations are publicly available on the Independent Public Expenses Authority (IPEA) website under the reporting tab. Every quarter, IPEA publishes detailed parliamentary business expense information on its website, which can be used to determine a parliamentarian's and their staff's business expenses. (ii) My Department is unable to provide this level of information as the travel system does not collect this data. (iii) Refer to the response for part (a) (i). Any additional details are not readily available in an aggregated format and its compilation would involve a significant diversion of resources. (b) *Please note: Figures include Department of Health, Office of Gene Tech Regulator (OGTR), National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) and Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). (i) I undertook one international trip in 2017-18, from 3 June 2018 to 10 June 2018 to the United States of America. (ii) I was accompanied by two departmental officials. (iii) The purpose of the travel was to attend the Biotechnology Innovation Organisation (BIO) International Convention, conduct bilateral and stakeholder meetings, and undertake site visits. Ricketson, Mr James (Question No. 1129) 115 1129 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 17 September 2018: (1) What is the strongest public statement issued by the Australian Government regarding justice for Australian citizen Mr James Ricketson.(2) How many times has the Australian Government raised Mr Ricketson's case with the Cambodian Government.(3) With respect for confidentiality, how hard would the Australian Government characterise its attempts to secure Mr Ricketson's release.(4) Have sensitivities related to agreements with the Cambodian Government regarding asylum seekers in any way affected the Australian Government's attempts to secure Mr Ricketson's release.(5) Has the Minister personally advocated to the Cambodian Government for Mr Ricketson's release; if so, how many times; if not, why not. Mr Pyne 9V5 on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 13 June 2018, former Foreign Minister, the Hon Julie Bishop MP, stated: "We have made representations to the Cambodian Government. I have written to my counterpart, the Foreign Minister. The Prime Minister and I raised it directly with the Cambodian Prime Minister when he was here for the ASEAN-Australia Leaders' Summit in March. Mr Ricketson does have a legal team, he has lawyers acting for him who are advising him. We have provided consular assistance - our officials have visited him on over 20, I think about 22 occasions to check on his wellbeing and provide support. There is a limit to how far we can go in intervening on behalf of an Australian citizen in the legal proceedings of another country, but we have certainly made our interests known and our concerns known to the government". On 22 September 2018, Foreign Minister Marise Payne said: "I welcome the news that James Ricketson's petition for pardon has been approved by the Cambodian Government. This ends a distressing time for Mr Ricketson and his family. I thank my counterpart, Cambodian Foreign Minister Prak Sokhonn, for his Government's positive consideration of Mr Ricketson's petition. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will continue to provide Mr Ricketson with consular assistance. Due to privacy considerations, I will not make further comments on the details of Mr Ricketson's release from prison and return to Australia." PQ18-000037 (2) Throughout Mr Ricketson's detention, the Australian Government repeatedly raised his case at all levels. We supported Mr Ricketson's plea for clemency. Former Foreign Minister, the Hon Julie Bishop MP made direct representations to her ministerial counterpart (Mr Prak Sokhonn) at two separate ASEAN meetings (March and August 2018), as well as in writing. Mr Ricketson's case was one of the range of issues discussed at Prime Ministerial level at the ASEAN-Australia Special Summit in March 2018. The Australian Embassy in Phnom Penh made sustained representations to the Cambodian Government, including support for Mr Ricketson's application for Royal pardon. (3) Throughout Mr Ricketson's detention, the Australian Government repeatedly raised his case at all levels. We supported Mr Ricketson's plea for clemency. (4) No. (5) I publicly stated the Australian Government would support Mr Ricketson's application for clemency and, as Mr Ricketson was released shortly after I took office, I personally thanked my counterpart, Foreign Minister Prak Sokhonn, for granting his pardon. Cambodia (Question No. 1130) 116 1130 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 18 September 2018 : Has the Government considered targeted sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, against any or all of the 12 senior generals implicated in human rights abuses as outlined in Human Rights Watch report Cambodia's Dirty Dozen (June 2018). Mr Pyne 9V5 The answer to the member's question is as follows: All options are under review while we continue to urge the Cambodian Government to allow freedom of speech and political association, without violence and intimidation. Commercial Fishing: Shark Fins (Question No. 1140) 116 1140 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 15 October 2018: What action is the Government taking to coordinate, support or assist state and territory governments to ban the sale and purchase of shark fins and shark fin products. Ms Price 249308 Commercial fisheries in Australia are regulated by Australian, state and Northern Territory fisheries agencies. While the practice of shark finning (removing the fin and discarding the body) is banned in commercial fisheries in Australia, some fisheries allow for the harvest of whole sharks of certain species. Once landed, the sharks may be processed for the sale of meat and fins and other shark products. The Australian Government regulates the import and export of shark products. Export of product from a commercial fishery can only be undertaken once the fishery is assessed as sustainable in accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the 'Guidelines for the ecologically sustainable management of fisheries – Edition 2'. The Government continues to implement conservation management measures to help ensure sustainable fishing, including for sharks, in Australia and internationally. These include the international and national plans of action for the conservation and management of sharks, as well as actions through regional fisheries management organisations. Fossil Fuel (Question No. 1145) 116 1145 Mr Georganas DZY asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 15 October 2018: (1) What steps has the Government taken to protect women and local communities impacted by fossil fuel projects linked to Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) listed companies.(2) What agreements, binding or otherwise, are used to uphold women's rights to address responsible business practice, including but not limited to climate change, and what advice has the Government received on this matter. Mr Morrison E3L I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australian companies are responsible for abiding by the laws of the country in which they operate, as well as Australian laws that apply extraterritorially. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade works with Australian businesses and actively advises companies about Australian extraterritorial offences, sanctions and international obligations. For listed entities, the Corporations Act 2001 sets out additional requirements for a directors' report. Under section 299A(1), a listed entity's directors' report must contain information that shareholders would reasonably require to make an informed assessment of the entity's operations, financial position; business strategies, and prospects for future financial years. It is under this section that companies are required to disclose any foreseeable risks. This could include risks to women and local communities. In addition, the ASX Corporate Governance Principles set out recommended practices for listed companies. Principle 3 notes that listed companies should act ethically and responsibly, which encompasses environmental and social factors. The Australian extractives sector has arguably the world's best practice industry‑led framework to assist industry to build more gender diverse workforces and protect women's rights in the workplace. The Australian Women in Resources Alliance (AWRA), supported by Australia's resource industry employer group, the Australian Resources and Energy Group, assists employers to improve the gender diversity of their companies, with the overarching goal to increase women's participation in the resources, allied and related construction sectors to 25 per cent by 2020. AWRA has advocated for this agenda at an international level. (2) The Australian Government encourages businesses to apply the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in their operations, both in Australia and abroad. This includes through its support of the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre in Australasia. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015, including Australia, is a non-binding, universal roadmap for sustainable development, applying to both developed and developing countries. At its core, the 2030 Agenda includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that apply to all countries at all stages of development. Goal 5 – gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls – is a standalone goal with gender equality as a cross-cutting theme across all other SDGs, notably Goal 12 (Responsible consumption and production), Goal 13 (Climate action) and Goal 11 (Sustainable cities and communities). Fossil Fuel (Question No. 1147) 117 1147 Mr Georganas DZY asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 15 October 2018: Can the Government outline the level of financial support provided via Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade development grants or programs to encourage projects that involve fossil fuel? Mr Pyne 9V5 The answer to the member's question is as follows: The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, through its bilateral development program, has provided no direct financial support to encourage projects that involve fossil fuels over the 2017-18 financial period. Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (Question No. 1148) 117 1148 Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 15 October 2018: In respect of the announcement on 2 July 2018 by Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), Dr Chris Parker, that a unit of specialist scientists and decision makers will remain in Canberra, (a) how many of these positions (i) have been identified as Canberra based, (ii) were originally identified to be relocated to Armidale, (iii) have been filled, and (iv) have been advertised, (b) what is the classification of each position in (a) (i), (iii) and (iv), and (c) how does this arrangement meet the criteria of the 2016 Government Policy Order which specifically prohibits APVMA's operation in Canberra Mr Littleproud 265585 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) (i) – 43 (a) (ii) – 43 (a) (iii) – 39 (a) (iv) – 2 roles have been advertised externally to the APVMA. Two more roles will be advertised in 2019. (b) (a) (i) SES Band 1 = 1 Executive Level 2 = 7 Executive Level 1 = 16 APS Level 6 = 13 APS Level 5 = 3 APS Level 4 = 3 (b) (a) (iii) Executive Level 2 = 6 Executive Level 1 = 16 APS Level 6 = 12 APS Level 5 = 3 APS Level 4 = 2 (b) (a) (iv) SES Band 1 = 1 Executive Level 2 = 1 (c) The APVMA is complying with the Government Policy Order issued under the PGPA Act by the Minister for Finance to relocate to Armidale, NSW. Employment: Overseas Workers (Question No. 1146) 117 1146 Mr Georganas DZY asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 15 October 2018: What Government programs, agencies, or departments are assigned to ensure the health and safety standards of workers overseas employed by ASX listed companies, and what impact, if any, have these bodies had on positive outcomes for exploited communities. Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: The Australian Government is committed to working with large Australian companies to ensure their operations and supply chains do not involve modern slavery. This is why the Australian Government has legislated the Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act 2018 (the Act) and established a Modern Slavery Business Engagement Unit in the Department of Home Affairs to implement this legislation. Under the Act, certain large Australian companies are required to produce annual public statements explaining what actions they are taking to assess and address modern slavery risks in their operations and supply chains. This includes actions these companies are taking to ensure their overseas employees are not subjected to modern slavery. The Act will contribute to positive outcomes for exploited communities by increasing business awareness of modern slavery, reducing modern slavery risks in business operations and supply chains, and driving a business 'race to the top' to improve workplace standards. Darwin City Deal (Question No. 1150) 118 1150 Mr Gosling 245392 asked the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population, on 15 October 2018: When will he sign the Darwin City Deal? Mr Tudge M2Y The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Darwin City Deal was signed on 16 November 2018. Public Transport (Question No. 1176) 118 1176 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Families and Social Services in writing on 24 October 2018: (1) Why did the Government discontinue its travel concession subsidies to Great Southern Rail that in turn created fare discounts for Australian concession card holders.(2) Will the Government reinstate travel concession subsidies to Great Southern Rail; if not, why not. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth Government entered into an agreement with the Great Southern Rail (GSR) to provide concessional fares to pensioners and veterans to assist with the transition to a privately run network. The agreement expired on 30 June 2016. (2) There are no plans to provide Commonwealth funding to GSR for concessional services. National Drug Strategy (Question No. 1178) 118 1178 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 25 October 2018: (1) Is the Government developing an alcohol and other drugs treatment waitlist item as part of the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Services National Minimum Data Set; if so, what progress has been made; if not, why not. (2) When will the Government publish the National Quality Framework for Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Services endorsed by the Ministerial Drug and Alcohol Forum on 14 June 2018. (3) Has the Department of Health considered using 2016 Census and National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program data to determine the allocation of National Ice Action Strategy funding; if so, what were the results of that consideration; if not, why not. (4) Has the Government referred to the Productivity Commission an inquiry into the costs and benefits of the National Drug Strategy; if not, why not. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government has referred developing an alcohol and other drugs treatment waitlist item as part of the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Services National Minimum Data Set to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), who manage that collection. My Department and the AIHW are currently working with a technical advisory group to determine the feasibility of such an item. The technical advisory group is expected to provide advice in early 2019. (2) The National Quality Framework will set a nationally consistent quality benchmark which consumers can expect from drug and alcohol treatment providers. The National Drug Strategy Committee (NDSC) National Quality Framework working group is finalising the implementation components of the National Quality Framework, including the list of acceptable accreditation standards that service providers will be required to hold. The National Quality Framework will be released on my Department's website by the end of 2018. (3) I have asked my Department to update the National Ice Action Strategy funding allocation model using 2016 Census data and this process is underway. Wastewater analyses cannot be broken down by demographic variables that may be important considerations in designing alcohol and drug treatment responses, such as age, ethnicity or sex. However, my Department will use the broad indications of patterns of use from wastewater reporting to validate the funding allocations. (4) The National Drug Strategy is a high level strategic framework that provides strategic guidance to help the Commonwealth, states and territories to plan their investment in reducing the impact of alcohol and other drug use in communities. The Strategy is not a funding mechanism. Traditional Chinese Medicines (Question No. 1180) 119 1180 Mr Zappia HWB asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 26 November 2018: (1) What tests are performed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration to ensure that complementary and traditional Chinese medicines comply with the manufacturer's claims of ingredients. (2) Are these tests the same for locally manufactured and imported products. (3) Do these tests determine if additional unlisted ingredients are present. (4) What proportion of products are tested. (5) How many cases of non-compliance occurred in 2017-18, what was the nature of the non-compliance and what penalties were imposed. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has an active post-market compliance review program in which we conduct random and targeted reviews of listed products. Where a sponsor is found to be in breach of the therapeutic goods legislation, the TGA can take a range of regulatory actions, including cancelling the product from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG). As part of these post-market activities, the TGA performs laboratory testing to assess the quality of therapeutic goods. A risk-based process is applied to determine which particular tests are performed. The range of tests performed is designed to detect counterfeit ingredients, undeclared ingredients, or ingredients of unacceptable quality in the manufacture of the medicines. In the case of complementary medicines (including traditional Chinese medicines), the TGA laboratories have performed the following types of tests: identity tests, using state-of-the-art equipment to confirm that a particular herbal or pharmaceutical active ingredient stated on the label and specified on the ARTG is present in the medicine (e.g. Ginkgo, Black Cohosh); chromatographic screening tests, to determine if the medicines contain any undeclared pharmaceutical active ingredients or other prohibited substances (e.g. sildenafil, sibutramine); tests to detect the presence of toxic contaminants in the ingredients (e.g., aristolochic acid, heavy metals). Other activities TGA undertakes, in addition to laboratory testing, to survey the compliance of products on the Australian market, include post-market reviews and investigations, pharmacovigilance and assessment of compliance with good manufacturing principles. Further information can be found on our website http://www.tga.gov.au/regulatory-compliance-framework. Our regulatory performance is reported in our annual statistical reports https://www.tga.gov.au/publication/performance-reports. (2) Yes. The same types of tests are performed on both locally manufactured and imported products of the same type. (3) Yes. Chromatographic screening tests are routinely used to determine whether active ingredients are present in the formulation of a medicine that have not been declared on the label and/or ARTG. Advanced identification techniques are used determine the identities of unknown ingredients, when detected. (4) The TGA tests approximately 2000 samples of therapeutic goods annually. This number includes medical devices, prescription medicines, over-the-counter (OTC) medicines, and complementary medicines that are entered on the ARTG, as well as products of these types, such as complementary medicines, that are unapproved because they have not been entered on the ARTG. During the 2017-18 financial year, the TGA tested 266 samples of complementary medicines that were listed on the ARTG. This represents approximately 2.5% of listed complementary medicines (266 out of a total of 10,456). During this period, the TGA also tested 155 samples of unregistered products, the majority of which were marketed as complementary medicines. (5) Information regarding the number and nature of breaches of regulatory requirements, and the regulatory action arising from TGA laboratory testing, can be found in the Annual Performance Statistics Report: July 2017 to June 2018 (www.tga.gov.au/annual-performance-statistics-report-july-2017-june-2018) and the Database of TGA Laboratory Testing Results (www.tga.gov.au/ws-labs-index). The TGA publishes details of the listed medicines cancelled from the ARTG on its website at: https://www.tga.gov.au/complementary-medicines-cancellations-artg. Alerts are also issued to advise consumers, health professionals and industry about new safety information regarding therapeutic products, including information about products detected in Australia that have been found to be counterfeit or illegal. These are available on the TGA website at http://www.tga.gov.au/all-alerts. Of the 266 complementary medicines samples tested by TGA in 2017-18, 27 samples (10.2%) were found to be non-compliant, 14 of which were related to the ingredients. These 14 samples, representing multiple batches of a single product, contained herbal ingredients prohibited for use in complementary medicines. The sponsor was required to destroy all remaining stock of these batches and to put in place additional testing requirements to prevent any reoccurrence of the issue. Of the 155 samples of unregistered medicines tested, 87 samples (56%) were found to be non-compliant of which all but one sample had undeclared ingredients. In 2017-18 there were 47 cases published on the TGA's website when undeclared ingredients were detected. The actions taken were seizure and destruction of the imported materials or products being illegally manufactured or sold in Australia, with legal action being instigated in some cases. Information for consumers and details of the regulatory action the TGA took in each case is provided on the TGA website. Department of Home Affairs (Question No. 1181) 120 1181 Mr Danby WF6 asked the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 26 November 2018: Is his department currently using the practice of language analysis for the determination of origin of asylum seekers in its processing of asylum claims; if so, which agency is tasked with conducting the analysis of the language sample provided by the claimant. Mr Coleman 241067 No. United States of America (Question No. 1182) 120 1182 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 26 November 2018: (1) Will the Government impose sanctions on all of the individuals sanctioned under the 'Magnitsky Act' (United States); if so, when; if not, why not. (2) What are the legal and policy rationales for Australia's autonomous sanctions regime not being more frequently and appropriately used to deal with human rights abusers and cases of serious corruption, as it is in the United States. Mr Pyne 9V5 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (Question 1) Australia makes its own assessments about how and when to apply autonomous sanctions. In making these assessments, we are cognisant of the approaches of like-minded States, including, but not limited to, the United States. Our assessments take into account Australia's particular circumstances, including whether or not the individual involved would be materially impacted by Australian sanctions. Australia's sanctions are kept under regular review. (Question 2) Australia's autonomous sanctions regime provides for the imposition of sanctions in situations of international concern, including the grave repression of human rights, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and/or armed conflict. Sanctions represent only one of several tools used by Australia to advocate for human rights. Others include high-level government-to-government representations, bilateral human rights dialogues, funding of and partnership with human rights non-governmental organisations, and Australia's engagement in regional and international multilateral forums, including as a current member of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Australia's use of sanctions is determined on a case-by-case basis as part of a holistic approach to human rights advocacy internationally. Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 (Question No. 1183) 120 1183 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 26 November 2018: (1) Does or can Australia's autonomous sanctions regime have the same substantive effect as sanctions under the 'Magnitsky Act' (United States). (2) Has Australia considered amending the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 and regulations, to bring them more into line with the relevant United Kingdom legislation, noting in particular that the United Kingdom legislation contains human rights safeguards (review of designations) and is relatively more transparent in its processes; if so, can he indicate what is being done in this regard; if such amendments are not being considered, why. Mr Pyne 9V5 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (Question 1) Under Australia's autonomous sanctions regime, the Minister may designate individuals and entities for targeted financial sanctions, which make it an offence to provide any assets whatsoever to designated individuals or deal with their assets. The Minister may further declare individuals for the purpose of preventing the person from travelling to, entering or remaining in Australia. (Question 2) The Government considers that Australia's autonomous sanctions regime is transparent and contains adequate human rights safeguards. Autonomous sanctions are targeted measures in response to situations of international concern, including the grave repression of human rights, and are justified and proportionate. Autonomous sanctions are based on predictable, publicly available criteria and listings are tabled in parliament and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Persons and entities affected by sanctions can seek review of listings decisions. The Government keeps its sanctions regimes under regular review. United States of America (Question No. 1184) 121 1184 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 26 November 2018: (1) Is it a fact that of the 49 individuals sanctioned under the 'Magnitsky Act' (United States), only one is subject to sanctions under Australia's autonomous sanctions regime; if not, what is the number. (2) Is it a fact that of the 26 individuals sanctioned under the 'Global Magnitsky Act' (United States), only three are subject to sanctions under Australia's autonomous sanctions regime; if not, what is the number. Mr Pyne 9V5 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (Question 1) As at 5 December 2018, 49 individuals are sanctioned by the United States under the Magnitsky Act. Of those individuals, one is subject to sanctions under Australia's autonomous sanctions regime in relation to the Ukraine. Australia maintains extensive autonomous sanctions in relation to Russia in response to the Russian threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ukraine, including export restrictions, targeted financial sanctions and travel bans. (Question 2) As at 5 December 2018, 41 individuals are sanctioned by the United States under the Global Magnitsky Act. Of those, three people are subject to Australia's autonomous sanctions regime in relation to Myanmar. Beyond this, Australia maintains a broad range of sanctions to address situations of international concern, including in relation to Syria and Zimbabwe. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 1185) 121 1185 Mr Katter HX4 asked the Minister for Families and Social Services, in writing, on 26 November 2018: (1) Why are disability services on the ground in North Queensland shrinking despite the NDIS being committed extremely large sums of money.(2) Why are disability services receiving less funding for the one twentieth of the Australian population living in North Queensland when tax revenue raising is at its highest since the GFC. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is now available across Queensland, and the major North Queensland population centre of Cairns became available to eligible people with disability from 1 July 2018. Since the NDIS commenced in Queensland, there has been a progressive increase in the number of registered providers. At the end of September 2018, there were 4,110 providers registered to deliver NDIS services in Queensland. This number is expected to increase further as more participants join the scheme. (2) Funding under the NDIS is allocated to individual participants, based on what is reasonable and necessary to meet their needs, rather than being allocated directly to service providers. The level of annual expenditure in Queensland is expected to more than double to $4.3 billion, with an expected 35,000 new jobs in disability services across the state. As at the end of September 2018, a total of $1.35 billion had been committeed for NDIS participant supports in Queensland. Water Act 2007 (Question No. 1186) 121 1186 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 26 November 2018: 1. In respect of the environmental outcome stated in section 86AA(2) (c) of the Water Act 2007 , can this be achieved without the additional supply of 450 gigalitres of environmental water referred to in paragraph 86AA(3) (b) of the Act. 2. What are the forward estimates for the dredging costs of the Murray Mouth. Mr Littleproud 265585 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Section 86AA(2) (c) of the Water Act 2007 notes that environmental outcomes can be enhanced by "ensuring the mouth of the River Murray is open without the need for dredging in at least 95% of years, with flows every year through the Murray Mouth Barrages". Research has demonstrated that the health of the internationally important Coorong is sensitive to closure of the Murray Mouth. It is unlikely that the Coorong would support a healthy ecosystem without functional connectivity to the Southern Ocean. Flows delivered from upstream to the Lower Lakes and through the barrages are an important factor in maintaining an open Murray Mouth but there are other important factors. These include tidal and storm activity, antecedent conditions and management intervention by dredging. The large body of long-term modelling work completed for the Basin Plan indicated that the specific environmental outcome stated in section 86AA(2) (c) of the Water Act 2007 can be achieved without the additional supply of 450 gigalitres of environmental water referred to in paragraph 86AA(3) (b) of the Act. 2. The most recent estimate of the costs of dredging the Murray Mouth is $4.3 million per year for the period 2019/20 to 2022/23. These cost estimates were provided by South Australia Water on 7 December 2018 as part of their MDBA River Murray Operations 2019-20 Budget Submission. These cost estimates will be reviewed by the MDBA and are subject to Ministerial Council approval. The final cost of Murray Mouth dredging is contingent on climate conditions and as a result, they may be different from the forecast. Oxley Electorate: Australia Post (Question No. 1187) 122 1187 Mr Dick 53517 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications and the Arts, in writing, on 26 November 2018: 1) Since 1 January 2013, what number of Australia Post street posting boxes have been removed from the electoral division of Oxley, and from what locations. 2) Will the Minister provide a list of the current street posting box locations in the electoral division of Oxley. 3) What options have been made available to residents who no longer have access to a nearby street posting box in the electoral division of Oxley. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the member's question is as follows: 1) I am advised by Australia Post that since July 2013, two street posting boxes have been removed from the electoral division of Oxley - one on Highfield Street in Durack, and the other in Deodar Street in Inala Heights. Australia Post further advises that specific data relating to street posting box removal numbers in the electoral division of Oxley between 1 January 2013 and July 2013 is not readily available and would require a substantial diversion of resources to compile. 2) A list of the current street posting box locations in the electoral division of Oxley is at Attachment A. 3) In addition to the street posting boxes referred to in Attachment A, the following options for accessing postal services are available in the electoral division of Oxley: Carole Park Licensed Post Office Darra Licensed Post Office Forest Lake Licensed Post Office Gailes Licensed Post Office Goodna Licensed Post Office Inala Heights Licensed Post Offices Inala Post Shop Middle Park Community Postal Agency Mount Ommaney Post Shop Mount Ommaney 24/7 Parcel Lockers Redbank Licensed Post Office Redbank Plains Licensed Post Office Redbank Plaza 24/7 Parcel Lockers Attachment A Australian Law Reform Commission (Question No. 1188) 124 1188 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 27 November 2018: (1) Why is there no Government response to Australian Law Reform Commission Report 111 Making Inquiries: A New Statutory Framework (February 2010). (2) When does the Government intend to respond to this report. Mr Morrison E3L The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: ALRC Report 111 Making Inquiries: A New Statutory Framework was commissioned by the then Attorney-General, the Hon Robert McClelland, and released on 4 February 2010. There is no legislative requirement for Government to respond to an ALRC report and the former Labor Government chose not to respond. Inspiring Australia—Science Engagement Program (Question No. 1189) 124 1189 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, in writing, on 27 November 2018: (1) Why are the Inspiring Australia—Science Engagement Programme Maker Projects Stream A and B grants awarded on a 'first in, best dressed' basis.(2) Why are these grants not awarded on the basis of merit.(3) How does the Government ensure that these grants are fairly shared between all schools that seek to apply.(4) How many minutes after the opening of these grants did they become closed to applicants.(5) How many schools sought to apply for these grants on the day that they opened but could not because the online application process was closed, and what sum of funding did these schools seek.(6) Will there be additional rounds of funding for these grants; if so, will the sum of funding available be increased.(7) Will the Government be bringing forward the next round of these grants to ensure more schools have equitable access sooner. Mrs Andrews 230886 The response to the honourable member's question is below: (1) and (2) The Commonwealth Grant Rules and Guidelines (CGRGs) requires the design of a grants program to achieve value for money in the administration of the grant opportunity. This includes ensuring the program is delivered in an "efficient, effective, economical and ethical manner, while not imposing overly burdensome requirements on grantees". Therefore, a demand-driven process has been used for the Maker Projects, which allows equitable access to funds under an eligibility based non-competitive process and ensures that the grants are fairly shared between all schools that seek to apply. (3) Only Stream A targets schools as potential applicants. Under this stream, schools that have previously received funding under the program are not eligible to be funded a second time. This facilitates greater equity across schools. To date, funding has been provided to schools in every state and territory, including regional Australia, and to both public and private sector schools. Making the grants available to all ensures that every school has an equal opportunity to apply for and receive a grant. (4) Maker Projects Stream A and B opened at 12 noon AEDT on Thursday, 8 November 2018 to accommodate schools in different time zones. Stream A closed at 12.38 pm, because funding was exhausted. As at 4 December 2018, Stream B remains open. (5) Not known. (6) and (7) The Maker Projects are funded under the Inspiring Australia program, which is an ongoing program. Funding of $800,000 is allocated for each round of the Maker Projects – Stream A, with the next round for both Stream A and Stream B expected in 2019-20. Due to the high interest in the program, the department is reviewing Maker Projects – Stream A's design and delivery process to improve future funding rounds and manage expectations of potential applicants. Australia's Paris Agreement Climate Change Commitment (Question No. 1190) 124 1190 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 27 November 2018: (1) Does the Government remain committed to Australia's Paris Agreement climate change commitment that it will reduce emissions to 26 to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030.(2) According to a claim in the Department of the Environment and Energy report Australia's emissions projections 2017 (December 2017), that total emissions in 2030 are projected to be 570 Mt CO2-e, which is 5 per cent below 2005 levels (597 Mt CO2-e) and that this is a reduction of 22 Mt CO2-e from the estimate of 2030 total emissions published in the 2016 projections of 592 Mt CO2-e, what changes have occurred between the 2016 and 2017 projections to reduce total emissions in 2030 and are these changes due to Government actions.(3) In respect of Figure 4 in this report that appears to show 2016 projections for 2030 emissions to be in excess of 600 Mt, which contradicts the figure of 592 Mt CO2-e provided in the same report, which 2016 projection for Australia's emissions in 2030 is correct. Ms Price 249308 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The Australian Government remains committed to our Paris Agreement climate change commitment to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. (2) Thereport Australia's emissions projections 2017 projected emissions in 2030 to be 570 Mt CO2-e, which is 5 per cent below 2005 levels. This represents a 22 Mt CO2-e reduction when compared to the emissions projections published in 2016. The decline was mainly driven by the following factors: reduced electricity emissions due to lower electricity demand and lower technology costs for renewable wind and solar technology; lower emissions of hydrofluorocarbons; higher projected carbon sequestration in regrowing forests; and lower demand for resources and lower than projected emissions from the mining and manufacturing sectors. These reductions were, in part, due to the implementation of the Government's National Energy Productivity Plan and the legislated phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons. Thereport Australia's emissions projections 2018 was published on 21 December 2018. It projects emissions to be 563 Mt CO2-e in 2030. The report is available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/publications/emissions-projections-2018. (3) The report Australia's emissions projections 2016 projected Australia's 2030 emissions to be 592 Mt CO2-e in 2030. There is a graphical error in figure 4 of Australia's emissions projections 2017 where the 2016 projection of emissions in 2030 are incorrectly shown to be above 600 Mt CO2-e. The Department has added a note to its website to explain this error. Environment (Question No. 1191) 125 1191 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 27 November 2018: Can more details be provided about the Government's commitment to grow 1 billion trees, including; 1. the budget for the scheme 2. how quickly the trees will be planted 3. the expected impact upon carbon emissions. Mr Littleproud 265585 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The National Forest Industries Plan Growing a Better Australia, A billion trees for jobs and growth includes a goal of a billion new plantations trees over the next decade. The aim is to support the forestry industry to expand plantations by removing barriers, encouraging farm forestry and creating regional forestry hubs. In the 2018 Federal Budget, the Australian Government announced $20 million to help implement the Plan. Tree planting will be undertaken by land owners and managers. The timing is expected to take ten years and is dependent on investment from the private sector and, in some cases, state government entities. The Hon. Melissa Price MP, Minister for the Environment, noted on 9 October 2018 that the plan to grow a billion new plantation trees will contribute to meeting Australia's climate change targets. The extent of the contribution will depend on a range of considerations, such as plantation scale, species selections, length of harvest rotation, and the end use of harvested wood. National Energy Productivity Plan (Question No. 1192) 125 1192 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Energy, in writing, on 27 November 2018: (1) In respect of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 2018 International Energy Efficiency Scorecard (25 June 2018) which shows that Australia has gone backwards on energy efficiency, leaving it ranked the worst performing major developed country in the world and behind developing nations such as India, Indonesia, and China, what is the current status of the National Energy Productivity Plan 2015-2030 (NEPP).No. 149 - 27 November 2018 49(2) Is the Government meeting its expected energy savings as per Figure 3 of the NEPP Annual Report 2016.(3) When will the NEPP Annual Report 2018 be released? Mr Taylor 231027 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The National Energy Productivity Plan is on track. (2) Yes. (3) 2019. Transport: Emissions (Question No. 1193) 126 1193 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, in writing, on 27 November 2018: 1) Will he provide an update on the Ministerial Forum on Vehicle Emissions. 2) What is the plan and expected timing for the release of a light vehicle CO2 standard for Australia. Mr McCormack 219646 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1) The Ministerial Forum on Vehicle Emissions, comprising of Minister Price, Minister Taylor and myself, is continuing to consult on a range of options to improve light vehicle fuel efficiency, reduce noxious vehicle emissions and improve fuel quality. The Forum is also looking at ways to encourage the uptake of electric and other low emissions vehicles. 2) The Government is yet to make a decision on how or when any fuel efficiency standard may be implemented. The Government is interested in developing a sensible framework that places savings for motorists front and centre, while ensuring that the vehicles that Australians value remain in the market. Disability Support Pension (Question No. 1194) 126 1194 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Families and Social Services in writing on 27 November 2018: (1) Can he provide a detailed breakdown of the estimated $5.2 million in savings as a result of the Government's policy to reduce the period of time (from 2 years to 13 weeks) a person with a disability who is convicted of a crime and sentenced can suspend their Disability Support Pension (DSP). (2) Can he outline what support the Government will provide to prisoners exiting the prison system after 13 weeks to reduce the likelihood of recidivism, noting these individuals will no longer have immediate access to their previously received DSP. (3) Over the forward estimates, can he advise how many prisoners will no longer have immediate access to the DSP upon their release from prison as a result in the reduction of permitted suspension times from 2 years to 13 weeks. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The 2018‑19 Budget measure Disability Support Pension – aligning suspension periods for imprisoned recipients was reversed in the 2018‑19 Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (refer to page 225, Strengthening the Integrity of Welfare Payments — extension and amendments). As a result of this reversal, there is no change to the existing policy. All Disability Support Pension recipients who are in prison continue to have their payments suspended until their period of imprisonment reaches two years. Disability Support Pension (Question No. 1195) 126 1195 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Families and Social Services in writing on 27 November 2018: Over the forward estimates, can he provide an estimate per calendar year for how many Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander people will no longer receive the Disability Support Pension on their release from prison as a result of the reduction in permitted suspension time from 2 years to 13 weeks. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The 2018‑19 Budget measure Disability Support Pension – aligning suspension periods for imprisoned recipients was reversed in the 2018‑19 Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (refer to page 225, Strengthening the Integrity of Welfare Payments — extension and amendments). As a result of this reversal, there is no change to the existing policy. All Disability Support Pension recipients who are in prison continue to have their payments suspended until their period of imprisonment reaches two years. Newstart (Question No. 1197) 126 1197 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Jobs, Industrial Relations and Women, in writing, on 27 November 2018: (1) In respect of a recent media release 'No job, no marriage, no home: She thought her son had hit rock bottom - but entering rehab cost him' by Ms Jacqueline Maley ( Brisbane Times , 8 November 2018), does the Government accept or deny that the policy to exempt Newstart recipients who are undergoing drug or alcohol addiction treatment, or on a waitlist for addiction treatment, from job-seeking activities has been misinterpreted by employment service providers.(2) If the policy to exempt Newstart recipients who are undergoing addiction treatment, or are on a waitlist for addiction treatment, from job seeking activities has been misinterpreted, what efforts has the Government made to ensure the policy is correctly applied in the future. Ms O'Dwyer LKU The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 1 July 2018, the Australian Government introduced changes aimed at encouraging job seekers to take positive steps to address their non-vocational barriers to gaining employment. Under these changes, job seekers with drug or alcohol dependencies are supported by their jobactive providers to undertake drug and alcohol rehabilitation through treatments, counselling or residential programs. Participation in these programs is included in the job seeker's Job Plan and—for job seekers who enter residential rehabilitation programs—fully meets the job seeker's mutual obligation requirements while they are in residence. In practical terms, this means that job seekers in residential rehabilitation programs are not required to attend provider appointments or undertake job search for the period of their treatment. Where no appropriate treatment is currently available, or a job seeker has a genuine reason for not being able to participate in treatment, their drug or alcohol dependency can still be accepted by their provider as a reasonable excuse if they fail to meet their mutual obligation requirements. Job seekers are no longer able to claim an exemption from their mutual obligation requirements based on their drug or alcohol dependency. In addition, job seekers who are not prepared to take the necessary steps to address their dependency and improve their employability can no longer repeatedly use their drug or alcohol dependency as a valid reason for failing to meet a particular mutual obligation requirement. However, for job seekers who are taking active steps to address their drug or alcohol dependency by undertaking treatment and who fail to meet a mutual obligation requirement, their dependency can still be accepted as a reasonable excuse by their provider in the event that they fail to meet a mutual obligation requirement. (2) The Department of Jobs and Small Business has advised jobactive Providers of the importance of ensuring that job seekers are given the opportunity to undertake drug and alcohol rehabilitation to address their non-vocational barriers to employment. This includes issuing guidelines, advice and bulletins to Providers to ensure the changes are clearly understood and the policy applied correctly. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 1199) 127 1199 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Families and Social Services in writing on 27 November 2018: (1) What policies, if any, has the Government implemented in each state and territory to monitor the transition of mental health clients onto the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)? (2) What steps, if any, is the Government taking to identify and monitor service gaps resulting from the introduction of the NDIS? (3) Noting that the Personal Helpers and Mentors (PHaMs) program was transitioned onto the NDIS in July 2018, can he advise how many individuals who previously accessed services under the PHaMs program that operated in South Australia were successful in their NDIS application?(4) What is the state and territory breakdown of the number of individuals with mental health issues that have been approved for NDIS funding for each calendar year the NDIS has been operating? Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's questions are as follows: The Department of Social Services (the Department), the Department of Health and the National Disability Insurance Agency (the NDIA) are working with providers to progress Commonwealth mental health clients into the scheme by 30 June 2019. The Department and the NDIA continue to closely monitor the transition of existing Commonwealth program clients, while continuing to support existing providers to transition from block funding to the fee‑for‑service NDIS model. Where transition has been slower than expected, the Department has made funding adjustments to providers so they can continue to support their clients. In 2018-19, the Department has provided an additional $13 million (as at 30 November 2018) for this purpose. The Department monitors the transition of mental health clients through NDIS transition steering committee meetings for each jurisdiction, comprising members from my Department, the NDIA and the relevant state or territory government department with responsibility for disability services. State and territory governments remain responsible for the funding and provision of public specialised mental health services and associated psychosocial support services outside the NDIS. The Commonwealth Government is also delivering psychosocial mental health support for those not covered by the NDIS, with funding and support guaranteed outside the NDIS. This funding includes $109.8 million over three years for continuity of support for existing clients not eligible for the NDIS, and an additional $80 million ($160 million with matched state and territory funding) over four years for the new National Psychosocial Supports Measure for new clients with psychosocial disability not eligible for the NDIS. Both programs will be delivered through the Primary Health Networks. The PHaMs program is still operating and is scheduled to transition to the NDIS by 30 June 2019. Based on NDIA data, as at 30 September 2018 South Australia had a total of 1,765 PHaMs client records, with 76 of these clients having approved plans and 103 assessed as eligible for the NDIS, noting the majority of clients with psychosocial disability are expected to join the scheme in 2018-19. The jurisdictional and calendar year breakdown of the intake of participants with an approved plan with psychosocial disability as their primary disability is shown in the table below. Newstart (Question No. 1200) 128 1200 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Jobs, Industrial Relations and Women, in writing, on 27 November 2018: (1) By state and territory, can he provide a breakdown of the number of individuals who were or are currently exempt from employment seeking activities as a result of undergoing drug or alcohol treatment programs since 1 July 2018, and the average length of time for the duration of the exemption. (2) By state and territory, can he provide a breakdown of the number of Newstart payment suspensions that have occurred as a result of drug or alcohol use since 1 July 2018. (3) What is the breakdown of the number of Newstart payment suspensions and subsequent reinstatements that have occurred since 1 July 2018 as a result of an incorrect interpretation of the policy by employment service providers. Ms O'Dwyer LKU The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) For job seekers who enter residential rehabilitation, participation in that treatment can fully meet their mutual obligation requirements. This means they are not required to attend appointments with their employment services provider or undertake job search for the period of that treatment. However, since 1 July 2018, job seekers can no longer be granted an exemption from their mutual obligation requirements while undergoing drug or alcohol treatment programs. Instead, job seekers remain connected to their employment services provider, who will work with them to develop a Job Plan that includes their treatment activities. The following table lists the number of jobactive job seekers (by state) who have had drug or alcohol treatment included in their Job Plan between 1 July 2018 and 31 October 2018. Treatments could include counselling and other non-residential treatments as well as residential rehabilitation. Given the diverse nature of both the treatments and the durations of treatments (e.g. a job seeker may be attending regular appointments with their GP, undertaking counselling through to residential rehabilitation for short or long-term stays), the Department of Jobs and Small Business is unable to provide data on the average duration of treatments. (2) While the department does capture a broad range of data in relation to the types of mutual obligation failures (e.g. failure to follow up on a job referral, failure to attend a provider appointment or unsatisfactory job search), the specific reasons for the particular failures are not captured. (3) As above. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 1202) 128 1202 Ms Bird DZP asked the Minister for Families and Social Services, in writing, on 28 November 2018: (1) In the electoral division of (a) Cunningham, (b) Whitlam, and (c) Gilmore, what is the current NDIS wait time for early intervention plan meetings for children under the age of seven.(2) How many children in these electoral divisions are on the waiting list for an early intervention plan meeting.(3) Do children on the waiting list for planning meetings still have interim access to services.(4) How many children and their parents and carers have had meetings and are still awaiting services. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) does not currently measure average wait times under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) for plan development at the electorate level. (2) The NDIA does not currently have structured data which would allow the measurement of current wait times for plan reviews under the NDIS at the electorate level. (3) Participants in this situation also have interim access to services via the Early Childhood Early Intervention Partner, who ensures mainstream and community programs are discussed with families, so that access to these services can commence without delay. The Early Childhood Partner will again ensure any priority needs are supported and supports fast tracked where appropriate. (4) The NDIA does not currently measure average wait times under the NDIS for plan development at the electorate level. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 1203) 129 1203 Ms Bird DZP asked the Minister for Families and Social Services, in writing, on 28 November 2018: In the electoral division of (a) Cunningham, (b) Whitlam, and (c) Gilmore, what is the (i) average wait time under the NDIS for plan development, and (ii) current wait time for plan reviews under the NDIS. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) does not currently measure average wait times under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) for plan development at the electorate level. (ii) The NDIA does not currently have structured data which would allow the measurement of current wait times for plan reviews under the NDIS at the electorate level. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 1204) 129 1204 Ms Bird DZP asked the Minister for Families and Social Services, in writing, on 28 November 2018: In the electoral division of (a) Cunningham, (b) Whitlam, and (c) Gilmore, how many (i) plan development and implementation processes and plan reviews are exceeding 12 months, and (ii) plan reviews have lapsed or been cancelled. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) does not currently measure plan development and implementation processes and plan reviews exceeding 12 months at the electorate level. (ii) The NDIA does not currently measure plan reviews that have lapsed or been cancelled at the electorate level. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 1205) 129 1205 Ms Bird DZP asked the Minister for Families and Social Services in writing on 28 November 2018: (1) How are costs regulated for certification auditors for early intervention plans under the NDIS.(2) Is there any regulation in respect of costs for auditors when auditing potential NDIS registered providers.(3) What is the average cost for certification for potential providers. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Approved Quality Auditors Scheme) Guidelines 2018 issued to certified auditing bodies approved by the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (NDIS Commission) set parameters around the scope and duration of audits. The NDIS Commission, together with the Joint Accreditation System and Australia and New Zealand (JAS-ANZ) which regulates auditors, monitors performance and costs over time. (3) The NDIS Commission is currently surveying samples of newly registered providers to gather information about audit costs, and therefore does not have this data available. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 1206) 130 1206 Ms Bird DZP asked the Minister for Families and Social Services, in writing, on 28 November 2018: (1) In the electoral division of (a) Cunningham, (b) Whitlam, and (c) Gilmore, how many requests for (i) the provision of wheelchairs, (ii) bathroom modifications, (iii) the provision of ceiling hoists, (iv) the provision of mobile hoists, and (v) home modifications such as ramps and railings, have been denied or required resubmission.(2) Can he advise the types of reasons for the above refusals. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) does not collect structured data on individual requests for i) the provision of wheelchairs, (ii) bathroom modifications, (iii) the provision of ceiling hoists, (iv) the provision of mobile hoists, and (v) home modifications such as ramps and railings by electorate. (2) The National Disability Insurance Scheme can only provide supports that are reasonable and necessary in accordance with the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013. This may include, but is not limited to: Support that represents value for money, is likely to be effective and is beneficial to the participant. Support that will assist the participant undertake social and economic participation. Funding that takes into account what is reasonable to be expected of families, carers, and the community to provide. Funding that takes into account whether support is most appropriately funded through the NDIS or through other mainstream services. The NDIA may request further evidence to substantiate what is reasonable and necessary. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 1207) 130 1207 Ms Bird DZP asked the Minister for Families and Social Services, in writing, on 28 November 2018: (1) In the electoral division of (a) Cunningham, (b) Whitlam, and (c) Gilmore, how many complaints have been received in respect of access to the NDIS.(2) What issues have the complaints related to.(3) How are these complaints registered and actioned.(4) What has been the outcome of such complaints. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) does not capture data at an electorate level for complaints. Available data is provided at a national level and is available in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Quarterly report which is available on the NDIS website at: www.ndis.gov.au . National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 1208) 130 1208 Ms Bird DZP asked the Minister for Families and Social Services, in writing, on 28 November 2018: (1) Under the NDIS, how are prices for equipment and home modifications regulated to ensure both the integrity of the system and that taxpayers are receiving value for money, whilst ensuring that people with disabilities have access to the services that they need.(2) In respect of reports of constituents being advised that they are debited several hundred dollars for quotations and that costs have escalated by up to 200 per cent for equipment and modifications when compared to original quotations, how is this issue being monitored and addressed by the department. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Prices for assistive technology and home modifications are not regulated by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). To ensure taxpayers are receiving value for money, prices are market tested through comparative quotations from available providers and where possible benchmarked against previous National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) payments for similar assistive technology or modifications. (2) In some cases specialised providers of assistive technology or home modification prepare detailed scope and design drawings needed to enable NDIA assessment of such requests against the NDIS Act. Routine quoting is not able to be funded from a participant's plan. In some cases the NDIA may request detailed designs for highly customised assistive technology or complex home modifications. In these cases, additional funds will be included in a participant's plan. With regard to cost escalation of supports provided through the NDIS, the NDIA has systems in place for performance monitoring, ensuring financial sustainability and business intelligence to mitigate cost escalation and other risks impacting on the sustainability of the NDIS. National Disability Insurance Scheme (Question No. 1209) 131 1209 Ms Bird DZP asked the Minister for Families and Social Services, in writing, on 28 November 2018: (1) How many NDIS/NDIA employees and contractors are employed to service the Illawarra region.(2) What is the breakdown of the total number of positions and contractors that service this region, how many employees and contractors are there for each role, and what does each role entail. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Illawarra region is currently serviced by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) Wollongong office. At the end of October 2018, there were 64 NDIA employees in Wollongong, including both APS employees and contractors. (2) 36 NDIA employees at the Wollongong office are employed to undertake a Planning role. Planners work closely with participants and Local Area Coordination Partners to determine what supports, services and funding participant may be eligible for. 28 Employees not employed in a planning role are engaged in a range of corporate and enabling functions, including quality assurance, community engagement, finance, and human resource management. Returned and Services League of Australia (Question No. 1211) 131 1211 Mr Katter HX4 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in writing, on 3 December 2018: In respect of increasing closures of local RSL clubs, most of which had existed for some 70 years: a. Will he commission an investigation into why there has been a sudden plethora of closures? b. Have such closures occurred as a result of the expenditure of significant sums of money on unnecessary and wasteful 'improvements' c. Where will the proceeds of the sale of these assets go, and d. can he indicate who will benefit from the sale of these assets Mr Chester IPZ The answer to the honourable member's questions (A-D) is as follows: Regarding closures of Returned and Services League of Australia (RSL) clubs, I can state that my portfolio has no responsibility for the management of such clubs. RSL clubs are typically formed by RSL sub-branches as commercial activities to provide services to its members, independent of the Australian Government. The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) is the Government entity responsible for regulation of charities (including RSLs) nationally. The ACNC Charity Register contains information about Australia's registered charities. It can be found at: https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/about-charity-register Each listing on the Charity Register shows details about a charity and its purposes, the names of the people involved in running the charity, as well as financial information and annual reporting. It also notes if the ACNC has taken any action against the charity for not complying with certain obligations. In response to your specific questions, I can respond that: a. No. I will not be commissioning an investigation into why there has been an apparently large amount of closures of RSL clubs as I have no portfolio responsibility for such matters. b. Financial documents including profit and loss statements, revenue projections and expenditure decisions of the RSL are not subject to the purview of my portfolio. Much of this information is available on the ACNC Charity Register. c. The sale of assets resulting from the closure of RSL clubs and disbursement of proceeds from any such sale is the responsibility of the RSL but should be reported to the ACNC. d. This is a matter for individual RSL clubs. Future Fund (Question No. 1212) 131 1212 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and the Public Service, in writing, on 03 December 2018 : (1) What proportion (as a percentage) of Australia's Future Fund portfolio is currently held in fossil fuel or fossil fuel related investments.(2) Does the Government consider investment in fossil fuel or fossil fuel related investments to be consistent with the Future Fund Investment Mandate Direction 2017 Part 2, 8 (b) stating that the Board must act in a way that is unlikely to cause any diminution of the Australian Government's reputation in Australian and international financial markets; if so, why; if not, why not. Mr Frydenberg FKL The Minister for Finance and the Public Service has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Future Fund invests broadly across thousands of entities, many of which have activities across multiple sectors and industries. It is not clear what is meant by 'fossil fuel related'. As such, no such percentage can be provided. (2) Yes. The Future Fund Board of Guardians invests in line with the Future Fund Act 2006, the Future Fund Investment Mandate Direction 2017 and the Board's investment strategy. Department: Departmental media events and photo opportunities (Question No. 1217) 132 1217 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for Energy, in writing, on 05 December 2018: In respect of the advertising campaign launched on Sunday 2 December 2018 targeted at energy consumers, (a) what sum was spent on this campaign, (b) for what period of time will the advertising run; and (c) given this campaign is based on legislation that will not be put before the Parliament in 2018, how is this expenditure appropriate. Mr Taylor 231027 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) $3.7 million (b) The campaign ran 2 – 15 December 2018, with digital media continuing until 23 December 2018. (c) The campaign informed Australians of government action to address the nation's energy challenges and provided consumers with practical information on how to reduce their power bills. Key messages are that the Government is making prices fairer and affordable, introducing new laws, keeping pressure on retailers, increasing penalties for overcharging and helping consumers get a better deal from their energy provider. All are statements of Government policy. Consumers were directed to poweringforward.energy.gov.au to learn how they can save further on the cost of their power bills. The Independent Communications Committee considered the energy campaign and confirmed it complied with the Australian Government's Guidelines on Information and Advertising Campaigns by non-corporate Commonwealth entities. Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources Veterans' Affairs (Question No. 1218) 132 1218 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in writing, on 5 December 2018: (1) Why is a veteran who has been granted a lifetime disability pension under the provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 not income and assets tested, yet a veteran who is granted a disability pension under the provisions of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 is income and assets tested for an age pension when that veteran reaches the age of 65 years. (2) Why is it that a disability pension paid to a veteran under Part II of the Veterans' Entitlements Act1986 is excluded from the income and assets test which is used to calculate the rate of a service pension, when a special rate disability pension paid to a veteran under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 is not excluded from the income and assets test which is used to calculate the rate of age pension. (3) What comparative research and analysis of the financial impacts on veterans affected in these two scenarios has been undertaken and what are the details of any such comparative research and analysis. Mr Chester IPZ The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Disability Pension paid under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) and the Special Rate Disability Pension (SRDP) paid under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 are excluded as income from service pension (but not rent assistance) means testing. Both payments are payable for life, meaning the payments continue beyond age pension age, currently 65 and 5 months. Both payments are included as income for means testing for social security purposes. The amount by which DVA disability pensions reduce any Centrelink income support payment is reimbursed to the recipient in the form of the Defence Force Income Support Allowance (DFISA), also payable under the VEA. (3) No comparative research has been undertaken. The SRDP paid under the MRCA is based on the Special Rate of pension, generally known as the Totally and Permanently Incapacitated (TPI) pension, paid under the VEA and its previous legislation. It was built into the MRCA as a safety net to ensure a former member unable to work because of accepted disabilities would have access to benefits at least equivalent to the Special Rate of pension paid under the VEA. Veterans' Affairs (Question No. 1219) 132 1219 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in writing, on 5 December 2018: Why is veteran compensation for an injury or disease that has resulted in permanent impairment limited to $110,000 under the provisions of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, which then effectively prevents the veteran from pursuing common law damages. Mr Chester IPZ The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Permanent impairment (PI) compensation under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act2004(MRCA) is paid in respect of any permanent physical and/or mental impairment in combination with any lifestyle restrictions resulting from a veteran's accepted conditions. The impairment from all of a veteran's accepted conditions is combined to arrive at a total impairment rating on a scale from 0 to 100 points. The impairment rating is combined with the type of service rendered at the time of injury along with a lifestyle rating to determine compensation payable. Generally speaking, the greater the degree of impairment caused by a veteran's accepted conditions and the effect it has on their lifestyle, the greater is the amount of PI compensation the veteran will be entitled to receive. PI compensation is paid as a periodic payment on a fortnightly basis. The current maximum compensation payable for PI is a weekly rate of $347.24. A veteran is entitled to receive the maximum rate of compensation if their combined impairment constitutes 80 or more impairment points. If a veteran's impairment is less than the maximum 80 impairment points, they will receive proportionally less than the maximum amount relative to the type of service. A veteran can convert the amount of PI periodic compensation to a lump sum, or to a combination of a fortnightly periodic payment and part lump sum. Under the MRCA, a veteran to whom PI compensation is payable, but who has not been paid any PI compensation, can institute an action for damages against the Commonwealth or a potentially liable member, for non-economic loss. The action is taken 'in respect of a service injury or disease'. It is not the permanent impairment assessment that a veteran may take action against, but a single condition as distinct from other accepted conditions. The amount of damages at common law is restricted to a maximum of $110,000 with respect of the single condition, is not indexed and is for pain and suffering (non-economic loss) only. The choice to institute common law action is irrevocable and once a veteran chooses to pursue damages, they are no longer entitled to PI compensation under MRCA for the same service-related injury or disease. If PI compensation has already been paid in respect of a specific service-related injury or disease, common law action cannot be taken in relation to that same injury or disease. Other entitlements under the MRCA remain payable such as incapacity payments, rehabilitation and treatment. This approach allows the MRCA to take precedence over awards of damages at common law for losses of a non-economic nature. Increasing or removing a cap on common law damages would undermine this purpose. While recourse to common law damages might be necessary in some limited circumstances, it has been agreed by government that the MRCA should adequately cover the field in most cases. The choice to institute damages, and the limit on damages against the Commonwealth or other liable parties for non-economic loss under s389 of the MRCA, was considered as part of the Review of Military Compensation Arrangements. Recommendations were that no change be made to existing provisions relating to the limit on damages, or the choice to institute action for damages against the Commonwealth or other liable parties for non-economic loss. Veterans' Affairs (Question No. 1220) 133 1220 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in writing, on 5 December 2018: (1) Why are some older veterans currently experiencing financial disadvantage if they choose to convert all or part of a periodic permanent impairment payment under the provisions of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, which may take many years to equal the amount of the lump-sum payment ($110,000), into an age-based lump sum. (2) What comparative research and analysis of the financial impacts on those veterans affected by the long period to recover their periodic permanent impairment payment has been undertaken and what are the details of any such research and analysis. (3) What action has been taken to address any cases where veterans have been negatively impacted by the long period to recover their periodic permanent impairment payment. Mr Chester IPZ The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA) provides Permanent Impairment (PI) compensation as a periodic amount for life. A veteran of any age can continue to receive the indexed fortnightly payment based on their degree of impairment. An eligible veteran may choose to convert all or part of a periodic permanent impairment payment into an age-based lump sum. The maximum amount of compensation payable for PI is currently $347.24 a week. A veteran is entitled to receive the maximum amount once their combined impairment constitutes 80 or more impairment points. If a veteran's impairment is less than the maximum, they will receive proportionally less than the maximum weekly amount relative to the type of service. A veteran will then have the choice to convert the amount of PI periodic compensation into a lump sum, or to a combination of a fortnightly periodic payment and part lump sum. The lump sum calculation is based on future life expectancy according to advice from the Australian Government Actuary (AGA). Age adjustments will not be made for males up to the age of 31 and females up to the age of 35. After these ages, the lump sum is based on the age next birthday of the veteran at the time the notice was given to them about their PI compensation payment choices. The age based lump sum is offered so that a veteran who is expected to live longer, and has a degree of impairment from a younger age, is adequately compensated. (2) The 2011 Review of Military Compensation Arrangements (the Review) considered the rationale for age-based lump sums under the MRCA. Several submissions to the Review raised the disadvantage caused to older recipients in not being eligible for the maximum lump sum. The Review established the MRCA approach is distinct from other compensation jurisdictions, such as the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related claims) Act 1988 (DRCA), in which lump sum benefits are paid at the same rate regardless of age and sex. The MRCA approach effectively parallels fortnightly disability pensions under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA), and offers the additional choice of being able to convert these to an age based lump sum, in lieu of the periodic payment, or a combination of both. The Review recommended retaining the current system because the lump sum is based on the periodic payment amount and is calculated on the total payments remaining to the member in line with future life expectancy. (3) The MRCA provides PI compensation as a periodic amount for life. Veterans have six months to decide if they want to convert this periodic payment into an age based lump sum. It is recommended that veterans seek financial and/or legal advice to discuss their individual financial circumstances with a suitably qualified professional. Where a veteran is awarded 50 or more impairment points as a result of their service injuries or diseases, the MRCA provides a reimbursement of up to $2,361.71 for financial and/or legal advice on the decision to convert a weekly amount into a lump sum. It may be perceived that older veterans are negatively impacted by the age based lump sum because they are not eligible to receive the maximum lump sum. However, previous reviews have supported the rationale of lump sum calculations and the use of AGA tables. If a veteran does not feel the lump sum is adequate, they can continue to receive the periodic payment for life. Regional Engagement Officers (Question No. 1221) 134 1221 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 05 December 2018: 1. What are the benefits of Regional Engagement Officers (REOs)? 2. Including overheads and salary, within what range is the annual cost for the placement of a REO? 3. How many REOs are based in (a) South Australia, and (b) other states and territories? 4. Why does South Australia not have more REOs? 5. Does the Government intend to base a REO in Goolwa; if so, from what month and year; if not, why not? Mr Littleproud 265585 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Regional engagement officers (REOs) strengthen the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's relationship with communities through their part-time role in their region. The group has an impressive range of skills and experience and a strong understanding of their communities. They are well-connected and well-respected in their community, they provide local insights and up-to-date feedback from communities across the Basin to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA). 2. They also assist the MDBA to undertake coordinated and targeted engagement efficiently in their regions a result of their local networks and knowledge. Depending on the number of hours contracted, the annual cost of a REO ranges between $85,000 and $100,000 per year. 3. (a) One. The Lower Murray (Below Lock 1, SA) REO is currently being recruited. (b) Six. Details on the location of REOs are available at www.mdba.gov.au/about-us/regional-engagement. 4. The MDBA's approach to engagement is not limited to the REO. The MDBA also has staff with a wide range of expertise based in its Adelaide Office and an Assistant Director, Engagement, based in Murray Bridge. All of the South Australian based staff contribute to engagement. This local team is further supported by expertise from other MDBA offices as required. The Basin Community Committee provides a further community perspective on water resource, environmental, cultural and socioeconomic matters to the MDBA and also has members based in SA. This coordinated approach to engagement enables the MDBA to maintain targeted engagement across the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin and its water users. 5. There is no intention to base a REO in Goolwa as the existing REO in SA services this area. The REO appointed to service the community below Lock 1 will be based in Murray Bridge. The REO and MDBA staff will continue to support the community of Goolwa as well as the communities of the wider South Australian Murray-Darling Basin and its water users including Adelaide, the South East and West Coast by attending key meetings and targeted events. Black Spot Program (Question No. 1222) 135 1222 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, in writing, on 6 December 2018: Has the Government completed the delivery of its Mayo by-election Black Spot Program (BSP) commitments for (a) Playford Highway, (b) Inman Valley Road, and (c) Goolwa to Strathalbyn Road; if not, what are the expected completion dates for BSP works on each road. Mr McCormack 219646 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: These projects are approved for funding under the Australian Government's Black Spot Program and are not commitments made in relation to the Mayo by-election. The projects were nominated for Black Spot funding by the South Australian Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) and were among the 24 projects for 2018-19 which were recommended for my consideration and approval by the South Australian Black Spot Consultative Panel. Delivery of the projects is being managed by DPTI. The projects are expected to commence in the near future and are expected to be completed by June 2019. Mayo Electorate: Hahndorf Traffic Study (Question No. 1223) 135 1223 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, in writing, on 6 December 2018: Has the Government completed the delivery of its Mayo by-election commitment to a Hahndorf strategic traffic planning study; if not, what is the expected schedule for delivery of the funding, and will the funding be supplied to the South Australian Government. Mr McCormack 219646 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Government has committed $1 million to deliver the Strategic Traffic Study in the Vicinity of Hahndorf Township and is working with the South Australian Government to deliver on this commitment. Preparation for the planning study has commenced with the Tender expected to be advertised in early 2019. Once the tender is awarded, a firm completion date will be known. Mayo Electorate: SteamRanger Heritage Railway (Question No. 1224) 135 1224 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, in writing, on 6 December 2018: Has the Government completed the delivery of its Mayo by-election commitment to the SteamRanger Heritage Railway; if not, what is the expected schedule for delivery of the funding. Mr McCormack 219646 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The project is under assessment by the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities. Funding will be delivered through a Funding Agreement with payments made in arrears on completion of project milestones. Mayo Electorate: Grants (Question No. 1226) 135 1226 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in writing, on 6 December 2018: Has the Government completed the delivery of its Mayo by-election grant commitments to (a) McLaren Vale and District RSL, (b) Port Elliot RSL, and (c) Hillsview Village Residents Association; if not, what is the expected schedule for delivery of the grants for each organisation. Mr Chester IPZ The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: *Grants types: V&CG - Veteran and Community Grants: provides seed funds for projects that support a healthy, quality lifestyle for members of the veteran community and assist them to remain living independently in their own homes. Grants also fund initiatives that reduce social isolation, support carers and improve access to community care services. ACGP - Armistice Centenary Grants Program: provides grants of between $3,000 and $50,000 for local community-based projects and activities to commemorate the end of the First World War, remembering Australian servicemen/women from all conflicts and celebrating a just and secure peace. BEST - Building Excellence in Support and Training: provides a financial contribution to ex-service organisations to provide pension, advocacy and welfare support to veterans and their dependants, as well as to past and present members of the Australian Defence Force and their families. STS-CCG - Saluting Their Service – Community Commemorative Grants: provides grants to a maximum of $4,000 for community-based commemorative projects and activities that are significant locally, but not necessarily nationally. Mayo Electorate: Woodside Defence Families Association (Question No. 1227) 136 1227 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 6 December 2018: Has the Government completed the delivery of its Mayo by-election grant commitment to the Woodside Defence Families Association; if not, what is the expected schedule for delivery of the funding. Mr Pyne 9V5 The answer to the member's question is as follows: The Government released grant funding of $9,070 to Woodside Defence Families Association, under the Family Support Funding Program, in September 2018. The Government has also released the first instalment of further funding of up to $20,000 to Woodside Defence Families Association to employ a coordinator. Funding of $10,302 for the period July to December 2018 was released in September 2018, with the second instalment for January to June 2019 to be released when Woodside Defence Families Association invoices Defence. Mayo Electorate: Yankalilla Football Club (Question No. 1228) 136 1228 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the minister representing the Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation, in writing, on 6 December 2018: Has the Government completed the delivery of its Mayo by-election funding commitment to upgrade the Yankalilla Football Club; if not, what is the expected schedule for delivery of the funding. Mr Littleproud 265585 The minister representing the Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The project is under assessment by the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities. Funding will be delivered through a Funding Agreement with payments made in arrears on completion of project milestones. Mayo Electorate: Strathalbyn and District Aged Care Facility (Question No. 1229) 137 1229 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care, in writing, on 06 December 2018: Has the Government completed the delivery of its Mayo by-election funding commitment to expand the new Strathalbyn and District Aged Care Facility to a full 36 bed nursing home; if not, what is the expected schedule for delivery of this commitment. Mr Wyatt M3A The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Commonwealth of Australia has committed $3.9 million to assist the state of South Australia with expansion of the Strathalbyn & District Aged Care Facility. A Project Agreement between the two parties is in the process of being finalised. Mayo Electorate: Mental Health Funding (Question No. 1230) 137 1230 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 06 December 2018: Has the Government completed the delivery of its Mayo by-election funding commitment of $1.17 million to boost mental health services in rural and regional South Australia; if not, what is the expected schedule for delivery of this commitment. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Liberal National Government has delivered on its commitment to boost mental health services in rural and regional South Australia. My Department has provided a funding agreement for $1.17 million to the Country South Australia Primary Health Network to provide additional psychological services for people with moderate to high complexity mental health issues and clinical care coordination services for young people in the Mount Barker region and surrounding areas. This funding agreement was executed on 19 December 2018 with funds due to be released on 21 December 2018. Mayo Electorate: Prospect Hill (Question No. 1231) 137 1231 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, in writing, on 6 December 2018: Has the Government completed the delivery of its Mayo by-election funding commitment for trails on Prospect Hill on Kangaroo Island; if not, what is the expected schedule for delivery of the funding? Mr McCormack 219646 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Prospect Hill Kangaroo Island Trail Redevelopment and Enhancement project was approved for funding of $750,000 under round two of the Building Better Regions Fund. The project commenced on 1 November 2018 and is expected to be completed by 31 May 2019. Payments are made on completion of milestone activities under the Grant Agreement. No payments have been made to date. Department of Veterans' Affairs (Question No. 1234) 137 1234 Ms Rishworth HWA asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in writing, on 6 December 2018: (1) Is the department confident it has taken all appropriate steps to implement the recommendations from the inquiry into the Jesse Bird case; if so, why is an independent reviewer, Emeritus Professor Robin Creyke AO, required to look into the implementation of the recommendations. (2) Who recommended an independent reviewer be appointed. (3) When have other independent reviewers been appointed to investigate whether the department has implemented recommendations from other inquiries (including senate inquiries). (4) Has the review started; if so, are there any initial findings. (5) How will the review be conducted. (6) What access will Professor Creyke have to the department to review the implementation of the recommendations. Mr Chester IPZ The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department has made, and continues to make, progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the inquiry. The Department publishes progress updates on its website. The last update was as at 30 September 2018. The independent review was a Government commitment to address shortfalls identified by the joint inquiry into the management of the Jesse Bird case. This commitment was made by the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon Dan Tehan MP, at the time he tabled the recommendations of the inquiry on 24 October 2017. (2) On 24 October 2017, the Hon Dan Tehan MP, then Minister for Veterans' Affairs, made a ministerial statement committing the Government to an independent review after 12 months. (3) There are no recent examples where the Department has appointed an independent reviewer to review the implementation of recommendations from other inquiries. (4) The review commenced on 12 November 2018. There are no initial findings. (5) The review is an evidence-based review. It is an independent assessment of the implementation of the recommendations based on consideration of departmental documents, data and information. (6) Professor Creyke has access to all relevant departmental materials and personnel required to conduct the review. Department of Veterans' Affairs (Question No. 1235) 138 1235 Ms Rishworth HWA asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in writing, on 6 December 2018: To ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs— (1) What is the cost of appointing Professor Creyke to review the implementation of the recommendations from the inquiry into the Jesse Bird case. (2) What is the length of Professor Creyke's contract. (3) When is a report due, and will it be made public. (4) Are recommendations expected as an outcome of Professor Creyke's report. (5) How was Professor Creyke chosen, (a) was there (i) an expression of interest process, and (ii) a shortlist of candidates; if so who were they, and (b) was an interview conducted. (6) Will any interviews with veterans or external parties be conducted. Mr Chester IPZ The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The estimated cost of the contract is $60,000 (including GST). (2) Professor Creyke's contract is on a part time basis over a period of two and a half months. (3) The final report is expected to be completed by late January 2019. Publication of the report will be considered by Government at that time. (4) The content of the final report of the independent review is not known at this point. (5) Expressions of interest were sought from 11 suitable eminent persons with backgrounds in the law, academia and/or the public service. I selected Professor Creyke. Interviews were not conducted. (6) Yes.