2019-02-14 45 1 8 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 14 February 2019

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

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 1

Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:31 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 is another example of the steps this government is taking to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation. It is an unfortunate reality that sexual predators seek to target the most vulnerable members of our society. These practices are vile, and we must constantly review our laws to ensure they are well suited to targeting any emerging forms of child sexual abuse. This bill will increase the protection of children by: responding to key recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and addressing operational difficulties the Australian Federal Police, Australian Border Force and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions are facing in investigating and prosecuting new trends in child exploitation. Failing to report and failing to protect In December 2017, the royal commission released its final report which detailed too many instances of people, who had been entrusted with looking after Australia's children, doing too little to protect those children from unimaginable harm. When vulnerable people were being subjected to sickening abuse, these people knew of the harrowing circumstances and did nothing. Rather than reporting to police and taking protective action, they turned a blind eye or even took actions to conceal the abuse. In line with the recommendations of the royal commission, this bill will introduce two new offences into the Criminal Code to criminalise Commonwealth officers who exercise care, supervision or authority over children and fail to report child sexual abuse, or negligently fail to reduce or remove the risk of child sexual abuse to those children. These reforms send a clear message: the safety of our children should always be put first. The Commonwealth has zero tolerance for child sexual abuse and expects all Commonwealth officers who are charged with caring and supervising children to fulfil their obligations to protect those children. Persistent child sexual abuse overseas This zero tolerance extends to the actions of Australians while they are overseas. It is common for sexual deviants to travel to foreign jurisdictions where criminal laws and child protection frameworks are weak, and opportunities to exploit vulnerable children are abundant. In response to other recommendations of the royal commission, the bill strengthens the laws in the Criminal Code for persistent child sexual abuse committed overseas by removing difficulties associated with prosecuting repeated instances of abuse. The royal commission highlighted that it is often the worst forms of offending—the repeated, regular and ongoing sexual abuse of children—that are the most difficult to prove. This is because child victims of this kind of sustained exploitation commonly have difficulties distinguishing between particular occasions of abuse. The amendments address these difficulties by reducing the number of occasions required to prove the offence. This helps to ensure perpetrators of persistent sexual abuse against vulnerable children overseas are not evading justice. Defence for overseas child sex offences and forced marriage In another effort to hold Australians who are predators more accountable for the sexual crimes that they commit against children overseas, the bill restricts the ability of offenders to escape culpability by claiming they were legally married to the child. Closing this loophole is crucial, as some countries permit girls as young as 10 to marry. The bill will also strengthen the existing forced marriage offences to ensure they explicitly capture all marriages involving children under 16. Child marriage is a pernicious practice that seriously harms the development and wellbeing of victims, with disproportionate impacts on girls and young women. Children trapped in early marriages are often subject to physical and mental abuse, rape and forced pregnancy. The bill sends a very clear message that this morally reprehensible practice will not be tolerated. Child abuse material, child pornography material and child l ike sex dolls The bill also strengthens the Commonwealth framework of offences to ensure a comprehensive, technology-neutral and future-focused response to all forms of child pornography material and child abuse material. In particular, the bill will clarify the law to ensure that the abhorrent new trend of childlike sex dolls, used to simulate sexual intercourse with children, is clearly and robustly stamped out in Australia. The bill will also introduce two new offences for possessing or controlling child pornography or child abuse material in the form of data stored on a computer or data storage device. Every single time child abuse material or child pornography material is viewed, the child portrayed in that material is revictimised and their trauma compounded. And so we must strive to ensure that our laws protect children from the dangers posed by abusers who operate online. These offences will ensure that sexual abuse against children is appropriately criminalised and penalised at a Commonwealth level, and will help to achieve better, more consistent outcomes for Australian survivors. By introducing these offences into the Criminal Code, the bill will also give Commonwealth prosecutors the tools they need to bring perpetrators to justice for the full range of their online offending. This can include anything from obtaining child abuse images via the internet, to storing those images locally or remotely, to sending material on to third parties. Conclusion In conclusion, I urge all colleagues—and I'm sure it won't take much urging—to support the passage of this critical legislation. Together as a civilised society we can demonstrate we are committed to ensuring children can grow up free from the evil of sexual abuse and exploitation. Debate adjourned. Customs Amendment (Immediate Destruction of Illicit Tobacco) Bill 2019 2

Customs Amendment (Immediate Destruction of Illicit Tobacco) Bill 2019

First Reading 2 Second Reading 2 09:38 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The government is committed to combating the illicit tobacco black market. In particular, a range of complementary measures were introduced in the Black Economy Package—Combatting Illicit Tobaccoas part of the 2018-19 budget. The black economy package seeks to disrupt illicit tobacco supply chains and deny criminal groups access to illicit profits that fund their other criminal and black economy activities. As part of this package, it is proposed that from 1 July 2019 tobacco products will be a prohibited import and will only be allowed to enter Australia with a valid import permit, with limited exceptions. Any tobacco that is detected at the border without a valid permit will be seized. The Customs Act 1901 currently requires seized prohibited imports to be stored for a minimum of 30 days before destruction. This storage requirement, together with legislative and administrative requirements for prohibited imports, will impact upon border operations and limit the ability of the government to regulate and manage illicit tobacco effectively. This bill will amend the Customs Act to empower the Comptroller-General of Customs to deal with seized tobacco products in a manner he or she considers appropriate, including immediate destruction of the goods. Similar controls already exist for other prohibited imports, including seized psychoactive substances and prohibited serious drug alternatives. These amendments will improve the handling of seized illicit tobacco, resulting in effective regulation of tobacco permit conditions and enabling greater focus on targeting of illicit tobacco. This bill will improve financial outcomes for the government and it will also enhance the implementation of the new tobacco measures. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff Amendment (Craft Beer) Bill 2019 3

Customs Tariff Amendment (Craft Beer) Bill 2019

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:40 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Craft Beer) Bill 2019 amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to lower the rate of excise-equivalent customs duty applied to beer imported in certain size containers. Currently, a lower rate of excise-equivalent customs duty is applied to beer imported in a container that exceeds 48 litres, compared with the same beer imported in a smaller container. From 1 July 2019, the amendments made by this bill will extend the lower rate to beer in containers of eight litres or more, provided the container is designed to connect to a pressurised gas or pump delivery system. The amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 correspond with proposed amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921, which apply to the equivalent domestically produced goods. This means that imported goods will continue to be subject to the same tax treatment as the equivalent domestically produced goods. Extending the lower excise rate for domestically produced beer will allow craft brewers, who typically use these smaller containers, to benefit from the lower rate. Extending the lower rate for imported beer will ensure that Australia is fully compliant with our international commitments, including those in our free trade agreements. Debate adjourned. National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2019 3

National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2019

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:42 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In particular, the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill (the bill) amends the National Health Act 1953 to support the ongoing administration of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and will ensure ongoing patient access to vital medicines. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) has been providing affordable access to medicines for Australians for over sixty years and is rightly respected and valued for the high-quality, cost-effective service it delivers. The Morrison government is deeply committed to the PBS and the Australian patients that benefit from this scheme. Our government has a commitment to list all medicines on the PBS when recommended to do so by the medical experts. Since 2013 our government has made approximately 2,000 new or amended PBS listings at an investment of over $10½ billion. This, of course, compares with the record of the previous government that deferred the listing of new medicines until such time as fiscal circumstances would permit. The delivery of medicines to patients once listed on the PBS is a collaborative effort and Australia is well supported by its broad network of community pharmacies and the broader medicines supply chain. This bill will support them to continue to support Australians in need. This bill proposes amendments which will support the PBS in two ways. Specifically, the changes will provide for application fees to be payable for applications by pharmacists to supply PBS medicines which was announced in the 2018-19 budget; and enable PBS medicines to continue to be supplied at pharmacy premises following bankruptcy. The first of the amendments provides for an application fee to be charged when pharmacists make an application to supply PBS medicines at pharmacy premises. There is currently no fee and this amendment will ensure the operations of the pharmacy approval processes are consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework. The fee will apply to all applications to establish a new pharmacy, relocate an existing pharmacy or where the pharmacy changes ownership. Payment of the fee will be required at the time pharmacists submit their application. This has the strong support of the Pharmacy Guild and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. The amount of the fee will be determined by the Minister for Health in a legislative instrument and will be calculated based on the regulatory activity involved in processing these types of applications. The fees will be reviewed each year by the Department of Health and adjusted accordingly. This bill also includes measures that will allow PBS medicines to continue to be supplied to patients following the bankruptcy of an approved pharmacist, to ensure the community can continue to receive much-needed medicines and not be penalised as a consequence of those private operations. This will be of particular benefit in rural and remote areas, where access to alternative pharmacies may be limited. The approximate number of pharmacies affected by bankruptcy or external administration is 20 each year. For many years, the arrangements following bankruptcy relied on the appointed administrator supplying PBS medicines at the pharmacy until approval was granted to another pharmacist, following the sale of the pharmacy business. However, during the course of a Federal Court matter involving a bankrupt pharmacist, it was found that an approval of a pharmacist to supply PBS medicines was not proprietary in nature for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act and therefore could not vest in the trustee in bankruptcy. Whilst the matter did not proceed to hearing, the result of an approval not being proprietary means that neither the approved pharmacist, nor the appointed administrator, is able to supply PBS medicines at a pharmacy affected by bankruptcy. Therefore, if the appointed administrator cannot take over supply, then access to PBS medicines from the pharmacy may be disrupted. Cessation or interruption of access to PBS medicines is, as I have said, of particular concern in regional or rural settings, where there may be no or few other approved pharmacies nearby. The amendments in the bill address these issues. The bill provides the Secretary of the Department of Health the power to grant permission to an appointed administrator to manage the supply of PBS medicines at pharmacy premises and therefore closes that potential gap. The new provisions will assist continuity of supply of PBS medicines at an affected pharmacy until such time as the pharmacy can be sold or transferred to another pharmacist. The changes proposed in this bill will improve the operation of the PBS and I am confident they will be welcomed by PBS users. I would like to acknowledge and thank key stakeholders for their input during consultation on the bill. I thank the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association, the Australian Friendly Societies Pharmacies Association, and in particular the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. The commitment of this government is to ensure that Australians have access through the PBS to affordable and life-changing medicines when and where they need them—medicines such as Orkambi for cystic fibrosis, Kisqali for breast cancer, Spinraza for spinal muscular atrophy, Tagrisso for genetically based lung cancer, and new immunotherapies such as Opdivo and Keytruda for a variety of indications. These are life-changing and life-saving medicines. The changes proposed will therefore support this commitment and, in particular, will ensure patient access to PBS medicines will no longer be compromised when a pharmacy is affected by bankruptcy or external administration. Therefore, that is about saving lives and protecting lives. I want to thank, in particular, the department and my office, including Mr Sam Develin, who has done an outstanding job in helping to bring these measures to this House. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. National Sports Tribunal Bill 2019 4

National Sports Tribunal Bill 2019

First Reading 4 Second Reading 5 09:49 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Sport plays a significant role in the Australian way of life—each year 14 million Australians participate in some form of sporting activity. Sport is also a fundamental contributor to the Australian economy. As highlighted by the BCG's Intergenerational review of Australian sport 2017, $35 billion to $47 billion of economic activity is generated by sport each year, equating to approximately two to three per cent of GDP, which is equivalent to the agricultural sector, I'm advised. Recognising the importance of sport to the Australian community, the Australian government invests more than $300 million to support high-performance sport and encourage greater participation. Australians have no tolerance, however, for corruption and manipulation within sport. In August 2017, on behalf of the government, I announced and commissioned the review of Australia's sports integrity arrangements, chaired by the Hon. James Wood AO QC—what is now and has ever since been known as the Wood review—as part of the work being done within the context of developing the National Sport Plan, or Sport 2030, which we announced in 2017. The Wood review was published on 1 August 2018. It confirms Australia's position as a leader in addressing sports integrity threats but cautioned that Australia's sports integrity response will require ongoing vigilance to ensure Australian sport can be protected. In short, we have some of the cleanest sport in the world but we want to keep it that way. I want to thank and acknowledge personally and on behalf of the Minister for Sport, Senator Bridget McKenzie, the work of all of the organisations and agencies both within government and within the sporting world for making that the case. But this is an eternal task of vigilance for which we must continue to lift the bar. Indeed, the Wood review found that sports are challenged by a range of mounting external integrity threats, including the increasing sophistication and incidence of doping, the globalisation of sports wagering—particularly through rapidly growing illegal online gambling markets—the infiltration and exploitation of the sports sector by organised crime, corruption in sports administration and growing participant protection issues. Whilst we have some of the cleanest sport and sporting bodies in the world, there are external threats which are real, and we have to acknowledge and address and confront them. Sports integrity matters are now therefore beyond the control of any single stakeholder. The nature of sports corruption and manipulation is evolving at the fastest rate ever observed, on the advice of the Wood review, due to the immense commercialisation of sport and sporting organisations and, in particular, accelerating technological advancement. These threats are complex, globalised, connected and form a complicated environment, so to respond effectively Australia must have a robust, comprehensive and nationally coordinated approach across sports, governments, regulators, the wagering industry, law enforcement and other stakeholders. A key recommendation of the Wood review is that a National Sports Tribunal be established to address antidoping and general sports disputes fairly, quickly and cost-effectively to ensure accessible natural justice for all parties. The Wood review examined similar models overseas, including in the UK, New Zealand, Canada and Japan, and found that Australia's sports dispute resolution mechanisms lag behind, which is exactly why we called the Wood review and established the process of outlining a 2030 plan. The review underlined the need for such an entity in Australia. Accordingly, the government will fund a two-year pilot of the National Sports Tribunal, which will allow refinement of its jurisdiction and operation according to demand. By establishing the tribunal, we will ensure that the Australian sporting community has access to a dispute resolution mechanism providing: cost-effective processes for sports and participants; timely, reliable and efficient procedures; transparency; and preservation of actual and perceived independence. Currently in Australia, some sports disputes are arbitrated in the first instance by tribunals run internally by individual sports. However, most sports have acknowledged they find it difficult to maintain internal tribunals. Their only available forum for antidoping rule violation disputes is the Swiss Court of Arbitration for Sport, which can be an expensive and time-consuming process. We have heard from a number of sports about the challenges they face in dealing with disputes. Managing such disputes detracts from the core business of our sports—building a more active Australia and achieving sporting excellence. Integrity compromises detract from these goals and cause major reputational and other damage, especially when they occur during major sporting events. The nation clearly knows this. Establishing the National Sports Tribunal will provide an effective mechanism to manage such issues. It is proposed that the tribunal will deal with two types of disputes—antidoping rule violations and general disputes. Accordingly, the National Sports Tribunal will be comprised of three divisions: an Anti-Doping Division; a General Division; and an Appeals Division. The Anti-Doping Division will hear antidoping rule violation disputes. The General Division will hear other types of disputes which arise under the rules or policies of a sport, including in relation to code-of-conduct breaches and disciplinary matters, selection disputes, member protection issues and the like. The Appeals Division will deal with appeals from the Anti-Doping Division and the General Division, and appeals from internal sports-run tribunals in relation to antidoping rule violation disputes and general disputes. The National Sports Tribunal will be established by statute, rather than privately, to enable the tribunal to be given powers to inform itself, including by requiring the attendance of witnesses and the provision of documents. The tribunal will be one of the few, if not the only, sports dispute resolution bodies worldwide that will have these powers, reaffirming the government's commitment to—and Australia's position as a leader globally in—protecting the integrity of sport. Further, with the agreement of both parties to a dispute, the tribunal will be empowered to provide dispute resolution services in addition to arbitration, including conciliation, mediation and case assessment. This government is intent on providing participants in sport with a fair, efficient and cost-effective forum for the resolution of sports disputes. We are also focused on relieving the burden of managing complex and serious dispute resolution from sporting organisations, so they can focus their time and their resources on doing what they do best, which is supporting our high-performance athletes as they seek to excel, and providing more opportunities for Australians to be active. I particularly want to commend the minister, Senator McKenzie, for her work in bringing the sports organisations together. It's a process that I'm proud to say we started in 2017. It is now reaching fruition, and it will mean that over the coming years and decades Australian sport will be even stronger in its protections against any form of malfeasance. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. National Sports Tribunal (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019 6

National Sports Tribunal (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019

First Reading 6 Second Reading 6 09:57 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce this supporting bill, the National Sports Tribunal (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019. This bill is a companion bill to the National Sports Tribunal Bill 2019, and will deal with consequential and transitional matters arising from the enactment of the National Sports Tribunal Act 2019, as well as for related purposes. In addition, this bill provides for the administrative matters required to transfer the functions and operations of existing sports dispute resolution processes to the National Sports Tribunal. The scope of this bill allows a degree of flexibility to make adjustments to the new arrangements or prescribe others matters of a transitional nature in the rules. This bill will make consequential amendments to the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006 to encompass the use of the National Sports Tribunal. These amendments will take effect prior to the establishment of the National Sports Tribunal on 1 July 2019. I wholeheartedly commend this bill and its companion bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Bill 2019 7

Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Bill 2019

First Reading 7 Second Reading 7 09:59 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and their Families First) Bill 2019. This bill will acknowledge and give thanks to veterans and their families for making the sacrifices they have made while serving in the Australian Defence Force. As the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I recognise that the Australian people value our military and those who have committed to defending our nation, and of course, as a government we are absolutely committed to putting veterans first and, indeed, putting veterans' families first. The introduction of this bill sees the realisation of an Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant where everyone can acknowledge, support and pay respect to all who have served in the Australian Army, the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force. Australia has a proud military history and the covenant will enable Australians from all walks of life to pay homage to this. The Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant will be enshrined into legislation, providing an opportunity for the nation to recognise the service and the sacrifice of all who have committed to defend the nation, and pledge their commitment to support veterans and their families. The bill also provides for acknowledgement of the demands and challenges that a veteran or their family may experience during and after military service. For these sacrifices, we acknowledge that additional support may be required and where support is required it will be provided in a way that is appropriate and sensitive to their individual circumstances and in a way that elevates their self-esteem. Along with the covenant a veteran card and lapel pin will be released—those who have an eligibility for a DVA medical treatment card will receive a veteran card. The lapel pin for veterans will provide a way for the Australian community and businesses to recognise a veteran and for veterans to reconnect with one another. The bill also includes a statement requiring the Department of Veterans' Affairs to adopt a beneficial approach when interpreting legislation and applying a fair, just and consistent approach to veterans' claims so that the public may trust and have confidence in the determinations made. I thank the Prime Minister for his assistance in preparing this bill and I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 7 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Closing the Gap 7 Reference to Federation Chamber 16 10:55 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 16 BILLS Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Single Treatment Pathway) Bill 2019 16

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Single Treatment Pathway) Bill 2019

First Reading 16 Second Reading 16 10:58 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Single Treatment Pathway) Bill 2019. The bill is designed to provide veterans with a more timely, convenient and user-friendly method of accessing their medical treatment. On behalf of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, it's recognised that the Australian community has a clear expectation that veterans will be well looked after and, of course, as a government we are committed to this and to putting veterans first and to putting veterans' families first. This bill will simplify access to medical treatment for veterans without the need for claim forms or up-front costs via a Department of Veterans' Affairs, DVA, health card. The amendments to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004would remove and replace the dual treatment pathway model with a single treatment pathway model. The amendments would mean that all DVA clients would have access to health care via a DVA health card. Since the introduction of DVA health cards, uptake in treatment among veterans has improved, indicating that, where they do not face any up-front costs, veterans are more likely to access treatment for service-related injury or disease. DVA health cards provide veterans with an easier way to access treatment which is not compromised by their inability to afford treatment. Once this bill is passed, veterans will only need to present their DVA health card at the time of receiving medical treatment and payments will be made directly to health providers via the Medicare system. Around 4,000 clients will no longer have to pay up-front and then seek reimbursement from DVA. Importantly, this bill retains discretionary power for the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to reimburse a person the cost of treatment in special circumstances. These amendments will mean better outcomes for veterans as they will have easier access to treatment as and when they need it. I commend this bill. Debate adjourned. Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Bill 2019 17

Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Bill 2019

First Reading 17 Second Reading 17 11:02 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Bill 2019. The bill will provide medical treatment to eligible members of Australian civilian surgical and medical teams who worked in South Vietnam from October 1964 to December 1972 under the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization aid program. During the Vietnam War, Australian civilian surgical and medical teams were engaged by the then Department of External Affairs to provide medical aid, training and treatment to local Vietnamese people in South Vietnam as part of Australia's contribution to the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization aid program. This measure was to be introduced in 2020; however, Australian civilian surgical and medical team members raised concerns that waiting another 18 months was not ideal for an ageing group, some of whom have serious health issues. This government has listened to these concerns. We are committed to ensuring this small group can access medical treatment as and when they need it, and so we have decided to bring forward this measure to 1 July 2019. The bill recognises the fact that civilian surgical and medical teams working in South Vietnam had a unique role in working for the Australian government in a conflict zone where they were exposed to hazards and dangers. The bill also recognises that the teams provided invaluable aid to Vietnamese citizens, often in difficult and traumatic circumstances. This bill will provide eligible civilian surgical and medical team members with access to medical treatment through a DVA gold card. DVA is aware of approximately 200 surviving members of civilian surgical and medical teams who will benefit from this bill. Civilian surgical and medical team members can already receive compensation and treatment for medical conditions related to their employment in South Vietnam under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988administered by Comcare. The bill would increase the level of medical assistance available to civilian surgical and medical team members by extending medical treatment to any injury or disease including those unrelated to their work performed in South Vietnam. Civilian surgical and medical team members will also be eligible to receive a pharmaceutical supplement and payment for travel costs related to receiving medical treatment. This bill will mean improved range and access to medical treatment for civilian surgical and medical team members as and when they need it. I commend this bill. Debate adjourned. Treatment Benefits (Special Access) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019 17

Treatment Benefits (Special Access) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019

First Reading 17 Second Reading 18 11:06 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019. The bill will make necessary amendments to related acts, to ensure that civilian surgical and medical team members will be able to receive medical treatment and pharmaceutical supplement resulting from their eligibility under the Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Act 2019. The bill will ensure that civilian surgical and medical team members eligible for medical treatment under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 will transition to arrangements under this bill easily and are exempt from paying income tax on travel expenses and the pharmaceutical benefits. I commend the bill. Debate adjourned. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018-2019 18

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018-2019

First Reading 18 Second Reading 18 11:08 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today, the government introduces the additional estimates appropriation bills. These bills are: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018‑2019; Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018‑2019; and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018‑2019. These bills underpin the government's expenditure decisions. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018‑2019 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $2.5 billion. These bills also ensure there is sufficient appropriation to cover estimates variations related to existing programs, for instance changes in costs for demand-driven programs. I now outline the more significant amounts provided for in this bill. First, this bill will provide the Department of Health with more than $626 million, including support for the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and assistance for farmers and farm communities in drought. Second, this bill will provide the Department of Home Affairs with almost $600 million, including funding for national security, provision of refugee and humanitarian assistance, and investment in critical national capabilities to enhance Australia's natural disaster preparedness. Third, this bill will provide $100.5 million to the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, including assistance for farmers and farm communities in drought. Fourth, this bill will provide $89.8 million to the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, including assistance for farmers and farm communities in drought. Further, this bill will also provide the Attorney-General's Department with $60 million, including support for the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. The royal commission will primarily look at the quality and safety of care provided in residential and home aged care to senior Australians and young Australians with disabilities living in residential aged-care settings. The bill would also provide the Australian Sports Commission with just over $60 million, which includes $30 million to expand the Community Sport Infrastructure Program to provide a greater number of grants for the community sporting facilities, $2 million to fund the development of a detailed business case on options for the future of the Australian Institute of Sport site and $25 million to support athletes preparing for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics. The bill will also provide, the National Gallery of Australia with over $14 million to continue to safeguard and exhibit its collection of artworks. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio additional estimates statements tabled in the parliament. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018-2019 19

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018-2019

First Reading 19 Second Reading 19 11:12 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018‑2019, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018‑2019, which was introduced earlier, andAppropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018‑2019 are the additional estimates appropriation bills for this financial year. This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $752.9 million. These bills also ensure there is sufficient appropriation to cover estimates variations related to existing programs. I now outline the significant items provided for in this bill. First, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will receive $82 million, mainly for critical enhancements to the security infrastructure of Australia's overseas diplomatic network. Second, this bill will provide the Department of Human Services with just over $40.6 million to bring forward investment in capital infrastructure from tranche four of the Welfare Payment Infrastructure Transformation program, which is progressively replacing Centrelink's ageing technology platform. Third, the Department of Home Affairs will receive approximately $28 million, mainly for the design and initial procurement of next generation visa processing systems. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule 1 to the bill and the portfolio additional estimates statements tabled in the parliament. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019 19

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019

First Reading 19 Second Reading 19 11:15 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The purpose of Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019 is to provide additional funding for the operations of the parliamentary departments. This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the consolidated revenue fund of just over $4.3 million. Of this amount, $3.25 million is available for the implementation of electronic voting for divisions in the House of Representatives, should the parliament decide to support that initiative. If this progresses, this will increase the efficiency, transparency and accuracy of the voting process. Another $1 million will be received to maintain the electronic security infrastructure of the Australian Parliament House. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the Department of Parliamentary Services additional estimates statements tabled in parliament. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2019 20

Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2019

First Reading 20 Second Reading 20 11:17 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will set the salary of the next Governor-General. The Governor-General is appointed by Her Majesty The Queen on the advice and recommendation of the Prime Minister and under the provisions of the letters patent relating to the office. On 16 December 2018, the Prime Minister announced that the Queen had approved his recommendation to appoint His Excellency General the Honourable David Hurley AC DSC (Retd) as our next Governor-General following the retirement of His Excellency General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Retd). General Hurley will be sworn in as Governor-General in June 2019. Section 3 of the Constitution prevents the Governor-General's salary from being altered during their term of office. As such, the salary must be set prior to the appointment of General Hurley as Governor-General in June 2019. Although the Governor-General serves at the Queen's pleasure, it is usual to serve for approximately five years. As such, it is necessary to set the next Governor-General's salary at a level appropriate for the duration of this term. It has been longstanding practice to set the Governor-General's salary by reference to that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. The proposed salary is based on a forecast of the Chief Justice's salary over the next five years using wages growth projections. I note that the Chief Justice's salary is determined annually by the Remuneration Tribunal, a body that is independent of government. In setting an appropriate salary, the Governor-General Designate requested that regard be given to the Commonwealth funded military pension he will be entitled to receive during his term in office. This is consistent with precedent established by Sir William Deane in 1995 and continued most recently by General Cosgrove. The proposed salary of $495,000 per annum reflects a reduction by the amount of General Hurley's military pension. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 20 COMMITTEES Privileges and Members' Interests Committee 20 Report 20 11:20 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I present the following reports: a report concerning a proposal by a member to amend the resolution of the House relating to the registration of members interests; and a report concerning the registration and declaration of members interests during 2018. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e). Corporations and Financial Services Committee 20 Report 20 11:21 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report, Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Takeovers Panel and the corporations legislation: report No. 1 of the 45th Parliament. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Intelligence and Security Committee 21 Report 21 11:21 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating a dissenting report, on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Strengthening the Citizenship Loss Provisions) Bill 2018. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr HASTIE 260805 by leave—I am pleased to present the committee's advisory report on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Strengthening the Citizenship Loss Provisions) Bill 2018. The bill proposes to amend section 35A—conviction for terrorism offences and certain other offences—of the act. Clause 1 of the bill proposes repealing existing subsection 35A(1) of the act and replacing it with a new subsection 35A(1). While the proposed provisions largely mirror those in the current subsection 35A(1), the bill makes three major changes. First, the person's citizenship may be revoked if they are convicted of associating with a terrorist organisation under section 102.8 of the Criminal Code and other conditions are satisfied. Second, a person's citizenship may be revoked if the minister is satisfied that the person would not, if the minister were to determine that the person ceases to be an Australian citizen, become a person who is not a national or a citizen of any country. Third, a person convicted of a specified terrorism offence need no longer to have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least six years or to periods of imprisonments that total at least six years, as required under current section 35A(1). No minimum sentence is required in the legislation in order for someone convicted of a relevant offence to have their citizenship revoked. This provision would apply retrospectively to all individuals who have been convicted of a specified terrorism offence from 12 December 2005. In its submission to the committee, the Department of Home Affairs noted the changes in the threat environment that necessitates the passing of this bill. The department stated: At the time section 35A (along with sections 33AA and 35) was inserted into the Citizenship Act, the threat environment was largely characterised by the danger posed to Australia and its interests by foreign fighters, including those who sought to return to Australia after travelling to the conflict zone … The number of Australians (and other foreign terrorist fighters) attempting to travel to the conflict zone has reduced considerably with the collapse of the self-declared caliphate of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). However, the violent ideology of Sunni Islamist terrorist groups, such as ISIL and al-Qa'ida, continues to appeal to a small number of people in Australia, and security and law enforcement agencies remain focused on stopping a terrorist attack in Australia.    …   …   … As at 3 January 2019, 58 individuals have been convicted and sentenced for Commonwealth terrorism offences in Australia since 2001. Forty-six of these individuals (just over 80% of the cohort) were sentenced in the last three years, after the commencement of the provisions in the Allegiance to Australia Bill from 12 December 2015.    …   …   … As at 3 January 2019, while 12 individuals offshore have ceased to be Australian citizens as a result of terrorism-related conduct, no individuals have had their Australian citizenship ceased under section 35A of the Citizenship Act. To ensure that this committee will have the opportunity to review the effect of these changes, it has recommended: … section 29(1)(ca) of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, be amended so to require that the Committee review the operation, effectiveness and implications of sections 33AA, 35, 35AA and 35A of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 and any other provision of that Act as far as it relates to those sections, by 1 December 2020. The act currently requires the committee to report by 1 December 2019. Increasing the time frame in which the committee will report this amendment to the Intelligence Services Act will allow time for the new citizenship loss provisions to take effect. The committee is satisfied with the provisions contained in the bill and recommends that the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Strengthening the Citizenship Loss Provisions) Bill 2018 be passed. In closing, I want to make a note on bipartisanship. This committee over the past few years, particularly the last two years while I have been chair, has approached the task of legislative review in a spirit of bipartisanship. This iterative process leads to stronger legislation. However, this parliament is democratic. It's where we fight over ideas and our principles, and we won't always agree. In this case, we don't agree. That's okay. This is Australian democracy. I want to particularly thank the deputy chair, the member for Holt, for his support in this process, as well as the member for Eden-Monaro and the member for Isaacs, who's been a good sparring partner! 11:27 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs by leave—This is a sad day. In the last five years, government and opposition members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security have worked together to make well over 300 bipartisan recommendations to improve and strengthen some 19 national security bills. On each occasion, Labor members of the committee have joined with our Liberal colleagues in issuing a unanimous report—but not today. In his valedictory speech, the former Attorney-General, George Brandis, listed three reasons why our domestic national security policy has been successful over the past four, now five, years. The second reason he listed was bipartisanship. Referring to eight national security bills introduced by the Abbott and Turnbull governments and supported by Labor, he said: All eight tranches of legislation were passed with the opposition's support after scrutiny by the PJCIS. It was a fine example of government and parliament working hand in hand to protect the national interest. I have heard some powerful voices argue that the coalition should open a political front against the Labor Party on the issue of domestic national security. I could not disagree more strongly. One of the main reasons why the government has earned the confidence of the public on national security policy is there has never been a credible suggestion that political motives have intruded. Were they to do so, confidence not just in the government's handling of national security but in the agencies themselves would be damaged and their capacity to do their work compromised. Nothing could be more irresponsible than to hazard the safety of the public by creating a confected dispute for political advantage. To his credit, the Prime Minister has always resisted such entreaties. Of course, the Prime Minister he was talking about was not the current Prime Minister but Mr Malcolm Turnbull. As was widely reported, and even more widely understood, the 'powerful voices' that Mr Brandis was referring to included the current Minister for Home Affairs. While I disagreed with Mr Brandis on many matters, I think when he was leaving parliament he finally found the courage to describe, in his valedictory speech, what he'd been observing in his own party's shift to the right, when he said: …increasingly, in recent years, powerful elements of right-wing politics have abandoned both liberalism's concern for the rights of the individual and conservatism's respect for institutions, in favour of a belligerent, intolerant populism which shows no respect for either the rights of individual citizens or the traditional institutions which protect them … This presents a threat to both liberalism and conservatism and a profound challenge to the Liberal Party … Mr Brandis is now gone, replaced by an Attorney-General who appears to hold none of the same concerns as his predecessor when it comes to his colleagues trashing their party's core values and undermining bipartisanship on national security matters by devising disputes over national security issues for cynical and entirely partisan political reasons. Malcolm Turnbull is also gone, replaced by a Prime Minister who has eagerly teamed up with the Minister for Home Affairs to, in the words George Brandis, 'open a political front against the Labor Party on the issue of domestic national security'. That's all he has to offer the Australian people. They've run out of policies, so all they have left is fear. Also gone are the spines of many of the government's frontbench and, apparently, of the former frontbench. The coalition has been here before. In 2015, the now Minister for Home Affairs's proposal to give a minister the power to strip an Australian of their sole citizenship divided the cabinet, resulting in cabinet leaks detailing the clash and a decision by that government to back down on that unprecedented proposal. As one political journalist memorably described it at the time: 'The Liberal Party were so busy trying to wedge Labor, they wedged themselves.' Yet, under this new law, the Minister for Home Affairs could do precisely what even Mr Abbott's cabinet could not countenance. What has happened to those voices who stood firm against the Minister for Home Affairs in 2015? What did the member for Sturt say when the Minister for Home Affairs brought this proposal to cabinet? And what does the member for New England have to say about this bill? How about the member for Menzies or the member for Curtin? What happened to their principles? This government has run out of policies, so all it has is fear and the politics of fear. Make no mistake: this bill is all about politics for this government. There is no higher priority for Labor than keeping Australians safe. We support cancelling the citizenship of Australians who are dual nationals and who have demonstrated that they no longer owe allegiance to Australia. That is why Labor members joined with our colleagues to recommend the passage of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, which first introduced section 35A into the Australian Citizenship Act, the provision this current bill is seeking to amend. It is, in part, because we support the current laws that Labor members of the intelligence committee cannot support the majority report and why Labor cannot support this bill in its current form. Under the current section 35A of the Australian Citizenship Act, a person may have their Australian citizenship cancelled if they are convicted of a prescribed terrorism offence, they are given a prison sentence of at least six years and they hold the citizenship of another country. The citizenship revocation provisions introduced in 2015 have been used to cancel the citizenship of 12 people. Labor supports the current law. This bill would amend section 35A by significantly expanding the Minister for Home Affairs's existing power to revoke a person's Australian citizenship to people who have committed a broader range of offences and who have never been given a prison sentence, and amend the requirement that a person must, as a matter of fact, be a citizen of another country to a requirement that the minister merely has to be satisfied that the person would not become a person who is not a national or citizen of any country if the person has their Australian citizenship revoked. If the changes in this bill are implemented, it would be for the Minister for Home Affairs to personally decide whether a person who is convicted of a prescribed offence has repudiated their allegiance to Australia, even if that person has not been given a prison sentence by a court. And it would be for the minister to personally decide whether a person is a citizen of another country, based not on the objective facts relevant to the subject's citizenship status but rather on the minister's opinion. We would all have to put our trust in the Minister for Home Affairs. We do not trust the Minister for Home Affairs to exercise such a broad and subjective power consistently, responsibly and in Australia's national interest. But our lack of confidence in the Minister for Home Affairs is something I'll return to later. Our primary concern is that this bill is likely to be found unconstitutional by the High Court of Australia. Unlike the Liberal members of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the entire government of Australia, my colleagues and I are not prepared to ignore the evidence presented by eminent constitutional lawyers and scholars who told the committee that the bill is likely to be struck down by the High Court. For example, Professors George Williams and Kim Rubenstein said it was 'more likely than not' that the High Court would find section 35A, as amended by this bill, unconstitutional. Peter Hanks QC, in a formal legal opinion that I obtained after the government refused to provide my colleagues and me with any advice or assurances on the issue of constitutionality, concluded that had there would be a 'substantial risk' of this happening. It should go without saying that Australians are not made safer by laws that are struck down by the High Court as unconstitutional. We're not interested in giving convicted terrorists a free kick in the High Court—yet this government does not seem to care. Of course, this government is more than happy to play politics with the Constitution. In this House on Tuesday, we heard a desperate, self-righteous and utterly misleading sermon on the subject by the Attorney-General. In an attempt to intimidate our colleagues on the crossbench into voting in favour of a motion that would have saved the government from an historic loss on the floor of the House, the Attorney-General bellowed: 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. I could scarcely believe what I was hearing because, after trying and failing to obtain assurances from representatives of the Department of Home Affairs that this bill was constitutional, I had written to the Attorney-General on 1 February 2019, seeking assurances directly from him. What did this supposed champion of the Australian Constitution do? Nothing. While he was busy cooking up a phony constitutional crisis, for base political reasons, on a matter which can never be taken to the High Court, he was ignoring a very real issue, the constitutionality of this bill, which could very well end up in the High Court. Despite the considered legal concerns that had been cogently presented to the committee in public evidence by eminent constitutional experts, the explanatory memorandum does not mention the Constitution of Australia at all. The Department of Home Affairs' submission to the committee did not refer to the Constitution of Australia at all. During the public hearing on 30 January 2019, the Department of Home Affairs admitted to the committee that the government had never sought the advice of the Solicitor-General, whose advice is routinely sought in relation to complex constitutional questions, about the prospects of this bill surviving a constitutional challenge or how the citizenship bill could be amended to put it on a stronger constitutional footing. Representatives of the Department of Home Affairs refused, in response to questions from my colleagues and me, to reveal anything about the advice that the government apparently has received regarding the prospects of the citizenship bill surviving a constitutional challenge; and the Attorney-General of Australia, who is tasked with upholding the rule of law, refused to deal with legitimate public concerns about the constitutional risk of this bill. Make no mistake, the constitutionality of this bill is not an academic point. The government is not proposing to add a power to the Australian Citizenship Act. Rather, the government is proposing to amend the existing power under section 35A to cancel the Australian citizenship of citizens with dual nationalities who've been convicted of a terrorism offence for which they have been sentenced to six or more years in prison. If the citizenship bill proceeds and section 35A is struck down by the High Court, there will be no section 35A at all. This would mean that the existing regime, which Labor supports, would be removed, with the effect that serious terrorists with dual nationalities could no longer be deprived of their Australian citizenship under the Australian Citizenship Act. Why would the government try to push through a bill that is likely to be struck down by the High Court, without asking the Solicitor-General for advice? In the words of George Brandis, it is to 'open a political front against the Labor Party on the issue of domestic national security'. In addition to constitutional concerns, submitters to the committee's inquiry expressed a number of other concerns, including that, despite recent comments by the current Attorney-General that 'retrospective criminal law is probably the most serious and unwarranted thing that any government anywhere in any democracy can do', this bill would apply retrospectively to 12 December 2005 without qualification. There would be no merits review available to anyone whose citizenship is revoked under section 35A, so, despite the enormous impact of stripping an Australian of their citizenship, they have no right to even question the minister's decision. As a matter of law, the amendments to section 35A would make it possible for the Minister for Home Affairs to render a person stateless in contravention of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961, to which Australia is a party—a scenario previously ruled out by the former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. The removal of the current requirement that a person has been sentenced to a period of at least six years in prison, or to periods of imprisonment that total at least six years, may result in arbitrary decision-making and the personal, subjective ministerial power under section 35A being used in a disproportionate manner. Each of these concerns warrants careful attention. The government paid them no consideration at all. Even if we joined with the government in ignoring all of the legal and constitutional issues with this bill, we would still hold serious doubts about the ability of the current Minister for Home Affairs to exercise such a broad, subjective decision-making power responsibly or in Australia's national interest, especially in the light of the recent fiasco concerning Neil Prakash. On 29 December 2018, the Minister for Home Affairs announced that Neil Prakash had lost his Australian citizenship under section 35 of the Australian Citizenship Act. Mr Prakash, by the way, was born in Melbourne. On the same day, it was reported that the minister and the Department of Home Affairs believed that Mr Prakash is a citizen of Fiji. The minister has also said that the government had legal advice which concluded that Mr Prakash is a citizen of Fiji. The problem with all of that is that Mr Prakash is almost certainly not a citizen of Fiji, and so, unless he is a citizen of a country other than Fiji or Australia, which the government does not claim, he is almost certainly still an Australian citizen. The reason I say Mr Prakash is almost certainly not a citizen of Fiji is that Fiji tell us he isn't, and they should know. It's also that representatives of the Department of Home Affairs told the intelligence committee in a public hearing on 30 January 2019 that the department never bothered to consult with an expert on Fijian citizenship law or hold any discussions with the Fijian government about Mr Prakash's citizenship status before the minister jumped in front of the cameras to deliver his press conference. The Minister for Home Affairs' blundering announcement about Mr Prakash achieved the following: it got him a few headlines in the media, it damaged Australia's relationship with an important security partner in Fiji, and it undermined the Australian public's trust in this government's capacity to competently implement our national security laws. Clearly, the damage that the current Minister for Home Affairs did to Australia's relationship with Fiji resulted directly from his inept administration of section 35 of the Australian Citizenship Act. That damage was both entirely avoidable and completely pointless. Now the minister is seeking to further expand his power under section 35A to make uninformed, subjective determinations with the potential to impact Australia's foreign relations. Why would any Prime Minister or any government risk further embarrassment to Australia and damage to our regional security relationships by trying to hand such an incompetent minister additional powers of this nature? In the words of George Brandis, it is to 'open a political front against the Labor Party on the issue of domestic national security'. If the parliament is still not convinced that this last-minute attempt to rush this law into the parliament is all about the current political desperation of the Morrison government rather than the nation's security, I draw the attention of the House to the committee's 2015 Advisory report on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. The amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act proposed in this bill are directly contrary to three of the bipartisan and unanimous recommendations made by the committee in that 2015 report. Recommendation 7 said that an individual's citizenship should not be revoked under section 35A of the act unless they had been convicted of a relevant offence with a sentence applied of at least six years imprisonment, or multiple sentences totalling at least six years imprisonment. Recommendation 9 said that an individual's citizenship should not be revoked under section 35A of the act unless they had been convicted of an offence that carries a minimum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Recommendation 10 said that section 35A may be applied retrospectively to convictions for relevant offences where sentences—that's actual sentences—of 10 years or more had been given. However, retrospectivity must not apply to convictions handed down more than 10 years prior to the bill receiving royal assent. That same 2015 report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security was unanimously re-endorsed by the committee as recently as eight months ago, in June 2018, in the advisory report of the committee on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017. The same Liberal members of the committee who co-authored that report are signatories to the majority report with respect to this bill. They provide no explanation for their about-face today on these key recommendations—none. Moreover, when Labor and the government passed the allegiance to Australia bill in 2015, the government established a clear and deliberative process for reviewing and, if necessary, amending the citizenship revocation provisions introduced by that bill, including section 35A. That process was established in response to two of the intelligence committee's other recommendations from its 2015 report. First, the then Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, now the Minister for Home Affairs, promised in the explanatory memorandum to the allegiance bill that the Prime Minister would refer the citizenship revocation provisions, including section 35A, to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, who would report by 1 December 2018. Second, the intelligence committee would, with the benefit of the monitor's report, review the same provisions and report by 1 December 2019. That process, which was recommended by a Liberal-majority committee chaired by the now Minister for Education and endorsed by the current Minister for Home Affairs as the then minister responsible, has not been observed. The promised referral to the monitor was never made and the review by the intelligence committee has not yet taken place. To date, the government has offered no explanation for this failure. The government's failure to honour and act upon commitments made to this bipartisan and statutory committee shows a disregard for parliament and convention. And it serves as yet further evidence that this bill is not about improving national security laws—there was a process in place for doing that, and this government didn't bother to do it. I will say it again: this bill is about nothing more than opening 'a political front against the Labor Party on the issue of domestic national security' by a desperate and irresponsible government. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 25 Report 25 11:49 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled From little things big things grow: Supporting Australian SMEs go global. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 by leave—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I'm delighted to present the report entitled From little things big things grow: supporting Australian SMEs go global. Australian SMEs are Australian small- and medium-sized enterprises. Most people in this chamber would agree that Australia is most likely the most successful liberal democracy in the world. A feature of our liberal democracy is our embrace of free trade. We are an enormously successful free trading nation, and we have been over successive governments of all political stripes. Indeed, in recent years we have had an extraordinary run of success in concluding free trade agreements. If you look at some of our larger Asian partners, in recent years we have concluded free trade agreements with China, Korea and Japan. Of course, just recently the TPP-11 has been ratified and, indeed, begun. As part of the TPP-11 we have also engaged in new partnerships with the likes of Mexico, Canada and Peru. But here's the thing: while our export growth has been quite spectacular—exponential, in fact—unfortunately, the facts bear out that small- and medium-sized businesses in Australia have not been growing their exports anything like larger companies. Why is that? Why have small- and medium-sized businesses not enjoyed the same growth as a result of free trade agreements as larger companies? How can we ensure that small- and medium-sized businesses in the future leverage free trade agreements better? These are the questions that have concerned the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and in particular the Trade Subcommittee, of which I am the chair and the member for Moreton, Graham Perrett, is the deputy chair. Those questions led to the inquiry for which this report today is tabled. The inquiry involved 153 different submissions and 16 public hearings across metro and regional Australia. We heard from small- and medium-sized business owners and operators. This inquiry was done differently, and for a good reason. A hypothesis, if you like, of the committee going into the inquiry was that small- and medium-sized businesses by virtue of their size are often too busy and too strapped to be looking at the detail of free trade agreements and thus often too busy to be writing submissions to parliamentary inquiries. That is why this subcommittee decided to do things differently. Of course, we accepted written submissions, but we also went directly to regional and metro areas and held open roundtables. Small- and medium-sized business owners and operators turned up on the day and gave evidence without any particular preparation. This was enormously rewarding for the committee because it meant that we heard from those people who are in the trenches, those people who are fighting for their businesses and those people who are our business ambassadors abroad—small- and medium-sized business owners and operators who not only are trying to make a buck domestically but have the vision and courage to take their businesses offshore. That gives me great confidence that the report tabled today answers some of those questions about why small- and medium-sized businesses have not leveraged free trade agreements as much as they could and, indeed, has helped us formulate 10 recommendations for how the government can help make free trade agreements more easily accessible and better used by small- and medium-sized businesses. Before I cover those recommendations off, I particularly want to acknowledge the guidance and support of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Senator Ian Macdonald—who, incidentally, attended I believe a majority of those roundtables. I also want to pay tribute to the deputy chair and member for Moreton, Graham Perrett, who has been with me, side by side, at each of those hearings and has been an absolute pleasure and delight to work with. I would like to thank the secretariat, also—James Rees and Andrew Dawson, in particular—and, more than anybody else, the small and medium business owners. Let me quickly cover the recommendations off. First is an in-principle statement of embrace of free trade, of which free trade agreements are only a part. Second is a recommendation about the need for us to identify and proactively address non-trade barriers. Third, we need to do a better job of ensuring that small and medium businesses are accounted for in our free trade agreements and indeed in how they are executed from there, particularly looking at strengthening the certificates of origin regime, SME chapters within FTAs and the like. Fourth is suggesting a trial, particularly in regional areas, where we have clusters of organisations of businesses that cluster together by virtue of industry, geography or provenance and collectively agree to collaborate and target international markets. We believe there is scope for the government to consider piloting a grants scheme to see whether we can help particularly some of those regional areas in Australia. Fifth, there is a need for us to review the resourcing of key agencies, such as Austrade and others, and key programs, including the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, with which most people with whom we spoke had been very pleased, but I believe there is room for review of how it can be improved. Sixth, we need to make free trade agreements more user friendly for those small and medium businesses. In particular, we are suggesting a single trade window for small and medium businesses so that it is easier for those companies to access and navigate through the process. Seventh, we believe there is scope for a far better 'team Australia' approach, whereby we look at better using the power of economic diplomacy, with non-ministerial delegations. I know from firsthand experience, working particularly in Asian markets, that more can be done with our parliamentarians who do not sit in the executive, who can accompany and assist our businesses but also have that 'team Australia' approach across different tiers of government as they promote offshore our country, our economy and our industry and businesses. Eighth is to adopt a more holistic approach to information sharing and capacity building. Small and medium businesses of course have to go through a long journey to build up capacity so that they are export ready. A more holistic approach to information sharing, to awareness and to training is something we believe the government should consider. Ninth is better use of data and technology. In particular, the potential for ecommerce is already on the agenda of government, but the room for small and medium businesses to leverage ecommerce to break into new markets is something that traditionally has not been seen before. Lastly, we're recommending an audit be commissioned into the untapped human capacity of Australians offshore and here at home, especially here at home domestically. We have such large multiethnic communities, about which we are very proud, but there is more that can be done to tap into that human capacity to help small and medium businesses go offshore. To make some final comments, can I say that, as somebody who lived and worked overseas for much of my 20-plus years in business before coming into this place, I believe Australians are different. I believe Australians are unique, and you find that out more the more time you spend overseas. It's a cultural thing. There's something about Australians. I think there's a degree of humility in the average Australian which means we adapt. We know how to crack a joke. We're a self-deprecating lot, which means that we have an ability to engage with people. It's no coincidence that Australia, despite being a relatively small country, sees its nationals running major corporations right across the world. There is something truly unique about the Australian people and our DNA. If we want to see little things get bigger, if we want to see smaller businesses really smash the international marketplace, we have to find a way of unleashing that innate human capacity of Australians. That is why reports such as this, we believe, contain recommendations that will play their role in helping small and medium businesses go from little things. As that song from a great Australian says: from little things big things grow. I commend the report From little things big things grow: supporting Australian SMEs go global to the House. 12:01 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton by leave—I rise to second and support the member for Fairfax, the chair of the Trade Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, in tabling the report From little things big things grow, and I wholeheartedly endorse all of the comments made by the member for Fairfax. It's been a wonderful subcommittee to work with. As stated, there were 16 public hearings all around Australia. Several of the subcommittee were Queenslanders: Senator Macdonald; the subcommittee chair; and me, the deputy subcommittee chair. Obviously we had a national focus, but there was a strong Queensland flavour throughout. The 16 public hearings brought in a range of evidence. As noted by the member for Fairfax, there was a particular focus on individual companies that don't have time to write submissions but had time to attend a hearing and provide evidence. I will give a shout-out to one of those. My brother-in-law, Peter Shearer, would never have time to write a submission—he is too busy doing the work of exporting—but came along and provided good evidence, like the evidence in the 153 submissions that we received and the other evidence we garnered in the public hearings. We focused on turning thriving local businesses and the opportunities that come with them into being our business ambassadors. I thank Andrew Dawson and the secretariat for the great work that they did all around Australia, and I endorse what the member for Fairfax said—that we would be turning these small businesses into a part of Team Australia where we will be able to make sure we trade everywhere we can throughout this nation in all sorts of businesses. I thank the member for Fairfax for his leadership of this subcommittee and look forward to working with him in the future. BILLS 27 BILLS 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 27

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 27 12:04 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. Most taxpayers comply with Australia's tax rules and pay their fair share of tax. However, some foreign investors have been using complex arrangements known as stapled structures and other broader tax concessions to extract profits from Australian businesses almost tax free. Australia has some of the strongest taxation integrity rules in the world. The government has already introduced a raft of key initiatives such as multinational anti-avoidance law, the diverted profits tax and country-by-country reporting. The measures in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Foreign Investors Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018 build on the government's work in protecting the integrity of Australia's corporate tax system. The package of bills neutralises the tax benefits of stapled structures and similar arrangements, limits broader concessions without requiring restructuring and provides certainty around choice of stapled structures going forward. It's important that everyone pays their fair share of tax to ensure the government is able to fund the vital infrastructure and services that Australians deserve. The bill is estimated to have a gain to revenue of $400 million over the forward estimates period. Moreover, the package protects the revenue base going forward. Together, the measures being implemented by this bill strengthen and protect the integrity of Australia's corporate tax base. I commend the bills to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 28 12:08 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 28 (lines 2 to 10), omit subsection 12‑451(7), substitute: (7) The time is 4.30 pm, by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory, on 14 September 2017. (2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 28 (lines 15 to 20), omit paragraph 12‑452(1) (c), substitute: (c) is *residential premises (other than *commercial residential premises); and (d) is not a dwelling that:    (i) is used primarily to provide specialist disability accommodation (within the meaning of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Specialist Disability Accommodation Conditions) Rule2018); and    (ii) is enrolled in accordance with section 6 of that Rule; and (e) is not a dwelling that:    (i) is used primarily to provide disability accommodation; and    (ii) is a dwelling of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subparagraph. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 28 12:09 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2018 28

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

Second Reading 28 Third Reading 28 12:11 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Income Tax Rates Amendment (Sovereign Entities) Bill 2018 28

Income Tax Rates Amendment (Sovereign Entities) Bill 2018

Second Reading 28 Third Reading 28 12:12 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 29

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

Second Reading 29 12:13 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I present a revised explanatory memorandum to this bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 creates a new tower access regime for towers owned or operated by NBN corporations such as NBN Co Limited, and would also allow the Minister for Communications and the Arts to specify certain temporary telecommunications towers as low-impact facilities in certain circumstances. Following amendment in the Senate, the bill also contains minor technical amendments to transmitter licence refund arrangements and broadcasting licensee support payments, as agreed in the media reform package of 2018. Schedule 1 of the bill will amend the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 to permit NBN corporations to provide emergency service organisations, like police, fire or ambulance services, with access to towers and associated sites and facilities. Currently, NBN Co cannot provide access to its towers to these organisations because of statutory line of business restrictions. These line of business restrictions limit it to supplying eligible services—such as access to towers—to persons who are carriers or service providers. Emergency service organisations are usually not engaged in the telecommunications business, so are not carriers or service providers. However, they do access towers owned by carriers to deploy equipment that allows them to operate more efficiently, and there is a clear public interest in them being able to access NBN Co's towers. Schedule 1 to the bill therefore amends the line of business restrictions. The restrictions are only suspended when NBN Co supplies access to towers and associated sites, and only when it supplies this access to eligible persons. Eligible persons are defined to include police, fire and ambulance services, and state or territory emergency services. NBN Co will not have to provide access if this is not technically feasible or if it does not have sufficient capacity on a tower for its own reasonable requirements or existing contractual requirements. It also will not have to supply access if it is reasonable for an eligible person to obtain access from another tower in the vicinity. This latter clause reflects the fact that other organisations provide tower access and therefore NBN Co should meet competitive neutrality requirements. NBN Co will be required to publish a standard offer for tower access and must provide the access on a non-discriminatory basis. These obligations are consistent with its general obligations when it supplies services to telecommunications companies. Schedule 2 to the bill will amend schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act 1997 to allow the more efficient installation of temporary telecommunications towers when used during emergencies, maintenance, peak holiday periods, and major sporting, cultural or other events. Schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act 1997 sets out telecommunications carrier powers and immunities, which allow some types of facilities, such as low-impact of facilities, to be installed and upgraded in a nationally uniform way without the delays imposed by lengthy development approval processes. The amendments in schedule 2 to the bill would allow the Minister for Communications and the Arts to specify temporary towers as low-impact facilities in certain circumstances. These changes will allow telecommunications carriers to quickly provide services to the community, businesses and emergency services organisations. The changes were outlined in a June 2017 public consultation paper, titled 'Consultation on possible amendments to telecommunications carrier powers and immunities'. Except during an emergency and natural disaster, there will be strict height restrictions imposed on temporary towers. The changes also include conditions to ensure that a temporary tower is removed within a set time frame and that carriers restore the land. Schedule 3 of the bill was inserted via amendment in the Senate. The schedule contains minor technical amendments to transmitter licence refund arrangements and broadcasting licensee support payments. The changes are to: amend a provision in the Radiocommunications Taxes Collection Act 1983 so that it operates as intended, such that pro-rata refunds would only apply to taxes imposed on transmitter licences paid in the financial year ending on 30 June 2017; to make amendments to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017 to omit Northern Rivers Television Pty Ltd from the list of specified companies eligible for a transitional support payment, and replace it with Network Investments Pty Ltd; and modify the operation of the transitional support payments provisions to reflect that the 'designated day' will now be a day in a later financial year. I commend the bill to the house. 12:19 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. This bill proposes to amend the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 to require the National Broadband Network Company to provide emergency service organisations with access in certain circumstances to towers and associated sites and facilities. It also proposes to amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 to enable the Minister for Communications to specify temporary towers as low-impact facilities in certain circumstances. This bill also incorporates a Labor amendment passed by the Senate on a broadcasting-related matter, which I will come to later. Turning first to schedule 2, which deals with temporary mobile towers: this schedule deals with the deployment of temporary mobile towers and infrastructure. The carrier powers and immunities regime is a longstanding provision under the Telecommunications Act which allows companies to deploy infrastructure under a range of circumstances. When a particular type of infrastructure is deemed to be of low impact, the usual planning process may no longer apply and the approvals process is streamlined. Low-impact facilities include some radio communications facilities, underground and above-ground housing, cables and the like. The longstanding arrangements help to minimise the cost and time to deploy networks and other related infrastructure. The explanatory memorandum notes schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act does not currently permit towers, other than replacement towers of a particular height, to be installed using such carrier powers and immunities. As you would well know, Mr Deputy Speaker McVeigh, mobile towers can be a sensitive issue for local communities for a variety of reasons, which I recognise as a local member but also in my previous role as a local councillor. Naturally, a balance must be struck between the need to deploy infrastructure efficiently and in a timely manner, to the benefit of consumers, and the processes and risk management that underpin their deployment. Temporary towers require local government approval in many places. Mobile operators are often required to obtain approvals from local government authorities to temporarily install these facilities. The amendments proposed by schedule 2 of the bill would allow towers to be installed temporarily, under the certain conditions specified, without the requirement for all of the approvals that are currently required. This includes situations such as providing services to emergency services organisations to respond to a natural disaster or emergency. It also includes periods of peak demand or additional capacity to support specific events. These are all legitimate circumstances in which temporary mobile infrastructure is deployed. The question raised by this bill is whether there should be more flexibility in certain types of deployment scenarios. Labor is, in principle, supportive of the steps to streamline processes for the deployment of temporary mobile infrastructure, provided it is safe for the community and the environment and that the benefits outweigh the risks. We strongly support the ability of temporary mobile infrastructure to be deployed expeditiously during natural disasters or emergency situations, as I'm sure all members do in this place. We have adopted a more cautious approach towards events and deployment in local areas of peak seasonal demand. Any proposal which seeks to provide mobile carriers with the ability to bypass local approvals must be developed with care and sensitivity, and in consultation with relevant community, council and local government stakeholders. Labor instigated an inquiry into schedule 2 of this bill primarily due to a concern that temporary towers could be deployed in some scenarios, such as events, under the streamlined arrangements proposed in this bill, but then become permanent through a process of minor relocation or gaming of the time limits. This situation, if permitted, would clearly be contrary to the intent and spirit of this bill. These concerns were reflected in the two primary recommendations of the Senate inquiry into schedule 2. I acknowledge the government has, in good faith, taken the committee's concerns into account, and has subsequently provided and issued a replacement explanatory memorandum to respond to the matters raised by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report from its inquiry into the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018, which was released on 10 September 2018. The amended explanatory memorandum makes clear that what could be described as a 'trivial relocation' of a temporary facility does not reset the clock, as it were, for the time period linked to the event and not the specific location. Another issue identified in the Senate inquiry was whereby an annual time limit could, perhaps opportunistically, be breached by a mobile carrier across two calendar years in a manner that permitted a temporary facility to operate for nearly 12 months, rather than the six-month intent described in the bill. The backstop safeguard in this situation appears to be the requirement to issue a land notice to the land owner, who then has the option of raising an objection with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. While this mechanism is imperfect, we are prepared to be flexible and see how it operates in practice. If the TIO observes unintended outcomes, there is nothing that would prevent a future parliament from taking reasonable steps to strengthen those safeguards as judged appropriate. For these reasons and given the issue of a replacement explanatory memorandum, Labor is satisfied that, on balance, there are adequate safeguards to address the concerns that have been identified. We are also satisfied about the existing environmental safeguards that exist. For this reason, it is our intention to support schedule 2 of the bill as it stands. Should evidence emerge of unintended consequences as a result of the changes, as I said, there will always be scope to revisit these issues on their merits. Turning to schedule 1 of the bill, access to NBN towers by emergency service organisations: schedule 1 of the bill proposes to amend the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 to require NBN to provide emergency service organisations with access to its towers in certain circumstances. These emergency service organisations can include fire, ambulance and police, as well as other state and territory services. These organisations have been unable to provide this access because of line-of-business restrictions in the originating NBN legislation. These restrictions prevent NBN Co from providing access to entities that are not supplying telecommunications services. Clearly, these restrictions are impractical and unnecessary when it comes to emergency service organisations, so the changes are welcome. Schedule 1 of this bill proposes to amend the existing restrictions applying to the NBN so that such access can be supplied to eligible emergency service organisations without breaching those restrictions. Labor is supportive of this proposal as it seems to be a sensible step. The Australian public has made a significant investment in telecommunications infrastructure because of the NBN rollout. It is important that these investments are leveraged for the public interest. Supporting the efficient deployment of communications infrastructure for emergency service organisations is certainly in the public interest. To progress this outcome, the bill proposes to establish a tower access regime to facilitate that access. Under the proposed tower access regime, NBN Co would be required to give access to the tower and related sites. If there is another tower in the vicinity of the tower owned or operated by NBN Co, NBN Co would need to be satisfied that it would not be reasonable for that entity to access that other tower before providing access to its own. We are satisfied that schedule 1 offers adequate safeguards and that NBN Co is not required to provide access where it is not technically feasible. Imposing such a requirement would create a range of operational and technical challenges that would be both costly and impractical unless a fair mechanism for cost recovery was in place. Finally, I also note Labor introduced an amendment to this bill in the Senate to correct a legislative issue that is preventing the payment of assistance payments to a regional broadcaster. The amendment proposes to omit Northern Rivers Television Pty Ltd as a specified company that is eligible to receive a transitional support payment under part 3 of schedule 6 of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017 and to specify Network Investments Pty Ltd in its place. I am pleased that the government supported the amendment in the Senate, and I look forward to their support in this chamber. The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017 established a transitional support payment scheme for specified companies. This entitles a company to a transitional support payment if it meets certain criteria, including being the holder of a commercial television or radio broadcasting licence. Northern Rivers Television is specified as a company that can receive an annual transition support payment if they meet the criteria for that payment. However, on 1 June 2017, Northern Rivers Television transferred the commercial television broadcasting licence and assets it held to Network Investments. Under the policy, Network Investments, as the current holder of the commercial television broadcasting licence, would have been eligible for the annual payment of financial assistance. However, it is not currently specified in the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017. The Labor amendment will specify Network Investments as being eligible for the payment. This will ensure that Network Investments receives the transitional support payment for each of the relevant financial years. This amendment was first introduced by the government in the House of Representatives to a separate bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2018. However, that bill appears to have since stalled under this minister, as has a lot else in the communications portfolio. The minister has been sitting on the government's communication deregulation bill for quite some time. Labor was tired of waiting for the minister to get his act together because all we saw was delay, delay and delay. We are pleased that the Labor amendment has been incorporated into the bill. In seeking to explain himself on this matter, the minister made the very bizarre claim that his deregulation bill, which the minister has not brought on for debate in the Senate, has somehow stalled because of Labor—yet more excuses from this minister. It is no wonder the communications sector is tired of having a distracted minister more focused on his backroom numbers than his portfolio. But we are glad that at least today, in the context of this bill, this amendment from Labor will have a useful outcome. 12:30 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam Labor's response to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 has had the benefit of consultations with the Australian Local Government Association, representatives of the telecommunications industry and the capacity to consider the inquiry and report that was done by our members in the other place. On the basis of that information and those consultations we are able to inform the House that Labor will be supporting both schedules 1 and 2 to the bill, which concern amendments to the telecommunications regulatory legislation. Schedule 2 of the bill proposes to amend the 1997 act to extend immunities from state and local government planning laws to mobile carriers in specified circumstances where they are deploying temporary towers without needing all the local government approvals in certain circumstances—those certain circumstances being natural disaster emergencies, amongst others. We strongly support the ability of temporary mobile infrastructure to be deployed expeditiously during a natural disaster or an emergency. That just makes sense. It's a clear case in which the benefits of the measures will outweigh any incumbent risk. I will talk a little bit about telecommunications and communications signals during an emergency situation. We're almost at the anniversary of the terrible Tathra bushfires. I had some discussions this morning with council representatives who were reflecting on the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria 10 years ago. There is example after example where people are relying on their mobile telecommunications during a natural disaster. I could point also to all the Pinery bushfires on the outskirts of Adelaide. I see the member for Grey in the chamber. He would be very familiar, as his electorate borders that region as well. This is critical infrastructure at any time and critical during a natural disaster. Close to 70 per cent of triple-O calls, emergency service calls, during a natural disaster—in fact, nearly 70 per cent of emergency calls, full stop—are made from a mobile phone. So it's all the more important that we have extensive coverage, particularly in those areas that are prone to natural disasters, floods or bushfires. The ideal situation would be to have extensive mobile phone coverage right throughout the country. It's a damn big place. We know that we're not going to be able to have a mobile signal absolutely everywhere, but along our main highway routes, along areas that are prone to natural disasters and in areas where there is a strong and large influx of tourists—perhaps visitors during a tourism season and perhaps visitors during a music festival, for example—there is a strong case, a need indeed, for us to be looking at either permanent structures or facilitating amendments such as this. Ideally, we would have permanent coverage. That is why when Labor were in government we spent $250 million on a regional backbone black spots program. This is the program which, I have to say, enabled the current government to leverage off it to ensure that they could provide subsidised mobile phone towers in many regional areas. Of course, they've mismanaged the program. They've wasted resources putting towers and base stations in areas that didn't improve the coverage. In fact in round 1 of the program, nearly one in five of those stations, according to the Australian National Audit Office, didn't extend coverage. They failed to facilitate competition and wasted a lot of money in round 1 of that program. Round 2 of that program was riddled with politicisation. Some lessons were learned in round 3. Hopefully they don't repeat those same mistakes in round 4 of the program. But, without the back haul in place, the $250 million invested by a Labor government, a lot of these mobile phone base stations simply could not operate. They'd just be poles in a paddock. Labor has a good track record in this area, and we will continue to invest in ensuring that we can extend coverage for mobile services throughout areas prone to natural disasters. Where it's simply not feasible or possible, legislation such as this, which provides and facilitates the erection of temporary facilities, is absolutely critical. I also need to make note of and give a shout-out to the telecommunications carriers in North Queensland at the moment. Townsville and surrounds has been devastated by flood, and I'm pleased to see that emergency service operators, our telecommunications carriers and our Defence Force personnel are working hand in hand, very closely together, to ensure that we get a temporary and then a permanent service up again. The recent floods up there have knocked out mobile phone towers in a number of locations. I know that our carriers are busy deploying cells on wheels as an interim measure to help get affected residents connected. Locals do appreciate the efforts of the carriers to assist them in these emergency situations. It would be remiss of me not to use an opportunity with a bill such as this to pay credit to the work that is being done up there and to all the services. Both Optus and Telstra have assistance packages to help customers in the region, including giving customers access to free and interim services during the recovery period, and we all understand how much and how important it is to connect and reach out to friends and families during these emergency situations. The schedule proposes to streamline processes which relate to deployment of temporary mobile towers and to provide more flexibility in certain types of deployment situations. I've described one. There may be others. Labor is, in principle, very strongly supporting these steps to streamline the processes for deployment of temporary infrastructure, provided it is safe to the community and for the environment and that the benefits do outweigh the risks. We believe in these circumstances they do. I see that the member for Mayo is in the chamber. I'll be surprised if she doesn't make mention of the need for battery backup of our mobile phone towers in emergency situations as well. I've had a number of conversations with the member for Mayo on this issue. We are keenly aware that communities being served by new mobile phone base stations in bushfire-prone areas want to have the peace of mind that there is a sufficient level of battery backup to ensure that, in the most critical phase of an emergency, their mobile towers are able to continue to operate. We do need to understand that, for the most part, when bushfires come through the area, it's quick—devastatingly quick, deadly quick—but it may also be a long period of time before a crew can come through the area and repair any damage that is done to the power and facilities. So having sufficient levels of battery backup in these bushfire-prone areas just makes good sense. If the member for Mayo is returned—and I'm confident that she will be—and if Labor is lucky enough to win the support of the Australian people at the next election, we'd like to engage in a sensible conversation with the carriers, with the emergency service providers and with interested members of this place to ensure that we have the sufficient level of standards in place to provide sufficient battery backup powering arrangements for these towers in these areas. I thank the member for Mayo for her ongoing interest in this area. I know it means a lot to her in her electorate. Labor believes that any proposal to provide mobile carriers with the ability to bypass local approvals must be developed in consultation with the relevant community council and local government stakeholders. That's why Labor instigated an inquiry in the other place to specifically look more closely at the consequences of the measures in schedule 2, and I personally reached out to the president of the Australian Local Government Association on this issue. I had productive discussions with David O'Loughlin, a mayor and the president of the association. The association outlined some concerns, and these concerns were reflected in the primary recommendations of the Senate inquiry into schedule 2 of the bill. So, Labor acknowledges that the government has in good faith taken the committee's concerns into account, and on this basis we're able to accept these recommendations to this schedule of the bill. I just want to finish by raising one point, and I thank the member for Greenway, the shadow minister, for drawing attention to this point in her contributions. This bill has had an attachment to it, an amendment that was moved by Labor in the Senate—a long overdue amendment. I thank the government members for agreeing to it finally. There was much delay in this, and it has a big impact for viewers of regional television in regional Australia. I'm talking, of course, about the amendment that proposes to permit Northern Rivers Television Pty Ltd as a specified company eligible to receive a transitional support payment under part 3 of schedule 6 of the broadcasting legislation. This will probably be all very puzzling for most members of this place. Let me put it simply: under the broadcasting reform legislation moved by the minister, which was passed through last year, certain transition and other refund payments were available to broadcasters because of the change in ownership between Norther Rivers Television Pty Ltd, subsequently purchased by WIN TV, headquartered in my electorate and the electorate of the member for Cunningham. The new owners became ineligible for those payments. That was never intended. The amendments moved by Labor in the Senate will ensure that the new owners, WIN TV, will get the payments that were always intended to go to them. We thank the minister for finally getting onto this important work. It wouldn't have happened had it not been for the work of the member for Greenway in ensuring that those amendments were moved in the Senate. With those comments, with those contributions, we commend the legislation to the House. 12:43 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I would like to thank the members of the House of Representatives who have contributed to this debate on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. The bill creates a new tower access regime for towers owned or operated by NBN limited corporations, such as NBN Co Limited, and would also allow the Minister for Communications and the Arts to specify temporary telecommunications towers as low-impact facilities in certain circumstances. Schedule 1 of the bill will amend the NBN Companies Act 2011 to permit NBN corporations to provide emergency service organisations like police, fire and ambulance with access to towers and associated sites and facilities. The bill requires NBN Co to meet competitive neutrality obligations. NBN Co will not have to provide access if this is not technically feasible or if it does not have sufficient capacity on a tower for its own reasonable requirements or existing contractual obligations. NBN Co will be required to publish a standard offer for tower access and must provide the access on a non-discriminatory basis. These obligations are consistent with its general obligations when it supplies services to telecommunications companies. Schedule 2 to the bill will amend schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act 1997 to allow more efficient installation of temporary communications towers when used during emergencies, maintenance, high-demand holiday periods and major sporting, cultural and other events. Schedule 3 to the bill sets out telecommunications carriers' powers and immunities, which allow some types of facilities, such as low-impact facilities, to be installed and upgraded in a nationally uniform way without the delays imposed by lengthy development approval processes. The amendments in schedule 2 to the bill will allow the minister to specify temporary towers as low-impact facilities in certain circumstances, and those changes will allow carriers to quickly provide services to the community, businesses and those emergency service organisations. The proposed changes were outlined in a June 2017 public consultation paper which was titled 'Possible amendments to telecommunications carrier powers and immunity: consultation paper'. As the chamber may recall, this bill was referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for consideration. The committee published its report on 10 September last year and focused on schedule 2 of the bill. I want to thank the committee for its hard work and considered report. It recommended that the bill be passed and also made recommendations about strengthening protections in schedule 2 to the bill to ensure that carriers would not be able to relocate temporary facilities as a means of avoiding the time limitations in the bill and to ensure that the protections will apply to heritage areas. I think the committee's additional recommendations were very sensible, although I note that they can largely be dealt with through additional clarification of the safeguards present in the current law and the bill itself. As such, the Minister for Communications and the Arts tabled a replacement explanatory memorandum for the bill in the Senate which addressed these recommendations and also addressed concerns raised in submissions made by stakeholders, including the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, the Communications Alliance and the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association. Members will be aware that schedule 3 to the bill was inserted by the Senate during its debate on the bill. The schedule contains a measure that the government proposed in the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2018, which was supported by those opposite. The schedule contains minor technical amendments to transmitter licence refund arrangements and broadcasting licensee support payments, as agreed in the media reform package of 2018. The government supported the amendment to the bill in the Senate because it will allow, amongst other things, payments to be made to Network Investments Pty Ltd as part of the transitional support payments under the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017. I call on all members to support the bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 34 12:47 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 2, item 5, page 20 (line 15), omit "annual limit", substitute "time limits". (2) Schedule 2, item 5, page 20 (lines 20 to 22), omit all the words from and including "ensure that" to the end of subclause 8B(1) of Schedule 3, substitute: ensure that:    (c) the total number of days in a calendar year on which those facilities remain at that place does not exceed 183; and    (d) the number of consecutive days on which those facilities remain at that place does not exceed 183. (3) Schedule 2, item 5, page 20 (line 26), omit "annual limit", substitute "time limits". (4) Schedule 2, item 5, page 20 (lines 31 to 33), omit all the words from and including "ensure that" to the end of subclause 8C(1) of Schedule 3, substitute: ensure that:    (c) the total number of days in a calendar year on which those facilities remain at that place does not exceed 90; and    (d) the number of consecutive days on which those facilities remain at that place does not exceed 90. (5) Schedule 2, page 21 (after line 5), after item 6, insert: 6A Subclause 9 ( 1 ) of Schedule 3    Omit "similar", substitute "equivalent". (6) Schedule 2, item 7, page 21 (line 16), omit "similar", substitute "equivalent". (7) Schedule 2, item 7, page 21 (line 25), omit "similar", substitute "equivalent". I will not take long in this House with these amendments. I move these amendments because I share the concerns of my colleague Senator Griff when it comes to this bill. We understand the importance of flexibility when it comes to the installation of temporary low-impact telecommunication towers in certain circumstances—for example, emergency situations and congested peak times, such as holidays and events. Telecommunications companies do need flexibility, and we believe that's important, and that's something that Centre Alliance supports. However, these provisions cannot be used as loopholes to avoid due process when it comes to community consultation. Telecommunication black spots are a big problem in our area. Goodness knows I've advocated long and hard for more reliable telecommunications in high-risk bushfire areas in my electorate. But towers are a source of considerable angst in my community when they are placed in sites that destroy amenity because telecommunication companies do not collaborate with commercial rivals and do not consult with locals. My amendments mirror the amendments put forward by Senator Griff to seek to ensure that, when carriers install a temporary tower, it is temporary. We want to refine the words to make sure carriers do not install a temporary tower and leave it installed for back-to-back periods of 183 days in two separate calendar years and, therefore, essentially allow the tower to remain there for a year. A year is not temporary if you're looking at the structure from your home every day. My amendments introduce a limit so that carriers cannot leave a temporary facility installed for more than 183 consecutive days if installed at or near a venue, or for 90 consecutive days if installed during a high-demand holiday period. If the facility is required to remain installed at a venue for longer than 183 days—or 90 days—the carrier should then follow the appropriate approval process to have the facility installed permanently. My amendments also require carriers to adhere to a fair and reasonable requirement to remove the temporary facility within 28 days of the completed maintenance, repairs or replacement of the existing facility, or 28 days after the end of that date. The site needs to be left in the way the carrier found it, if not better. If it's good enough to require campers and bushwalkers to take their rubbish with them when they go, then I can't see why telecommunications companies should not be required to do the same. Question negatived. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 35 12:52 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018 35

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018

Second Reading 35 12:53 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Corporations Act 2001(Corporations Act) and the Taxation Administration Act 1953(taxation act) to strengthen Australia's corporate and tax whistleblower protections. Firstly, it will extend the corporate whistleblower protection regime in the Corporations Act. Secondly, the bill introduces new protections for tax whistleblowers not available under existing laws. The importance of protecting corporate sector whistleblowers has been recognised for many years. However, legislative protections under the Corporations Act in place since 2004 have been sparingly used and are increasingly perceived as being inadequate, having regard to advances in whistleblower protections in the public sector, the registered organisations act and internationally. As part of the government's tax integrity package, new arrangements to better protect those who blow the whistle on noncompliance with taxation laws were announced in the 2016-17 budget. Together these reforms will help protect whistleblowers who often expose themselves to significant personal and financial risk, in order to help play a critical role in the early detection and prosecution of corporate or tax misconduct. The secondary beneficiaries of these new laws will be Australian businesses, as corporate governance and integrity practices increase, with officers, employees and taxpayers aware that there is now a higher likelihood misconduct will be reported. The amendments in part 1 of the bill extend protection to a broader class of people who interact with the corporate sector and expand the type of disclosures eligible for protection. To protect whistleblowers coming forward, the bill strengthens the whistleblower regime in a number of ways including preventing companies from using the protections as a defence for failure to take action on a disclosure or not commencing an internal investigation. The bill makes it easier for a whistleblower to seek redress for detriment or damage and permits anonymous disclosures not protected under the existing law. In addition, the bill mandates that all large companies have a whistleblower policy. The reforms encourage the Australian business community to assess their corporate governance as well as offer an opportunity to all Australian businesses, particularly public and large companies to take stock of their current practices for dealing with whistleblowers and develop and improve their whistleblower policies. Part 2 of the bill amends the taxation act to introduce tax whistleblower protections that are broadly consistent with the Corporations Act amendments. This reform is aimed at introducing arrangements that protect individuals who report breaches or suspected breaches of taxation law or misconduct in relation to an entity's tax affairs. Importantly, the new protections provide clarity for whistleblowers with regard to who they can make protected disclosures to. Eligible recipients include the Australian Taxation Office or an eligible recipient who is able to take action or investigate the alleged misconduct, such as an entity's tax agent or auditor, or an authorised person within the entity whose tax affairs are the subject of disclosure. The new tax whistleblower regime protects the identity of eligible whistleblowers through strict protocols on the sharing of a whistleblower's identity. The regime also allows for anonymous disclosures to be made. The regime also protects whistleblowers from victimisation and provides them with access to remedies including compensation should they suffer detriment as a result of making a disclosure or if their identity is revealed. The tax whistleblower regime is intended to encourage whistleblowers to disclose information relating to actual or suspected noncompliance with taxation laws to the ATO and eligible recipients who are able to take action or investigate the alleged misconduct. Following introduction into the Senate, the bill was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which tabled its report on 22 March last year. The government amendments will address many of the recommendations within the Senate committee report. At this point I would like to acknowledge and thank Senator Patrick for his commitment to strengthen protections afforded to whistleblowers. He's worked closely with the government to bring about several of the amendments to this bill, and in doing so, will ensure that whistleblowers are encouraged to come forward and are protected when doing so. The government amendments will improve access to compensation for whistleblowers who suffer victimisation. For example, whistleblowers will be able to make a claim for compensation when a body corporate breaches a duty it owes to the whistleblower to prevent a third person engaging in detrimental conduct towards them. Duties may include, for example, duties that arise under employment law or state and territory laws. Also, the amendments require a court to consider the period a person is likely to be without employment in circumstances where the detrimental conduct involved termination of employment. To ensure the corporate regime operates as intended, disclosures solely about personal employment related matters will be excluded from protection. The emergency disclosure provisions that allow for disclosures to parliamentarians and journalists have been amended to better align with those equivalent provisions in the public sector, as appropriate for the corporate context. For example, emergency disclosures can now be made for misconduct that represents a substantial and imminent danger to a person's health and safety, or the environment. A new limb has been introduced that allows for disclosures of misconduct based on a broad public interest test. Furthermore, the definition of journalist is revised to ensure eligible disclosures made to journalists employed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or the Special Broadcasting Service are protected. To reduce the compliance burden on companies an amendment is made to narrow the cohort of staff who are eligible to receive a whistleblower disclosure. Amendments are made to revise the commencement date of the bill and the commencement date of the whistleblower policy requirement to ensure regulator effectiveness is not compromised and to provide certainty for businesses. The bill also requires a statutory review is undertaken of the operation of the protections within both the Corporations Act and the taxation act, five years after the commencement date of the amendments. Amendments will also be made to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018 and have the effect of increasing financial penalties for offences under the whistleblower regime in the Corporations Act and the taxation act. The amendments seek to increase consistency where practicable with other Commonwealth whistleblower legislation, namely the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. The Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was consulted in relation to the bill and subsequent amendments and has approved them as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details on the government amendments can be viewed in the government response to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report into the bill, to be tabled at this time. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend this bill to the House. 13:01 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham It is a great pleasure to make a contribution to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018 debate in the House. I speak on behalf of my colleagues, who I know share a strong interest and a passion in fighting corruption in Australia—in business, in government and everywhere we might find it. We deal with a lot of bills in this House that feel esoteric and far from the lives of ordinary people, but this bill is actually crucial to things that we see on the front pages of our newspapers every day at the moment—in particular, uncovering businesses who are doing the wrong thing and are hurting people in our society. The bill before us provides some additional protections for people who are working in those organisations, or who are exposed to that kind of misconduct, and want to blow the whistle. It provides a better framework around how they can make a disclosure about something that's going on and make it in a way that's protected. I note the minister's speech on the bill. He didn't mention a few pertinent facts. One of them is the long journey that the government has had to go on to get the bill to the state that it's in today. Those who are paying attention to the detail will note that the bill originated in 2017, so we've spent a bit less than two years, actually, sitting on this bill in the parliament and trying to force the government to make significant change in this area, because that's actually what's required. The truth is that the law as it stands today doesn't provide proper protection for whistleblowers. I'll speak about some of the stories of whistleblowers who have gone through the current regime. The lives of some of these people have been destroyed by what's happened to them since they made a disclosure, when all they were doing was trying to act in the public interest. We've got a system in place today where they saw a wrong being done, for the benefit of the public they tried to come forward and the law didn't protect them. They lost significant things; they had mental health issues; they faced financial implications that have been severe and long-lasting for their families—and we just don't want that. Of course it's in all of our interests that we actually have a protective system for those people. We need them to come forward, we want them to come forward and we need to provide them proper supports to come forward. I will explain also in my comments about the bill some of the deficiencies that we continue to see in the whistleblowing system that have been left in place by the government. There are really big ones. People who watch this area of policy will know that Labor not so long ago announced a big reform package of things that we would like to change that relate to whistleblower protection, and those are things that a Shorten Labor government would do if we were elected to office. Those things are really important to us as Labor people. Everywhere we turn in our society today we see organisations and corporations who are sometimes doing the wrong thing and not properly being held to account. If we want to stop that kind of conduct, we have to encourage whistleblowers to come forward and we have to be able to look them in the eye and tell them that we, as lawmakers, as people who have a role in the legal system, have provided a way for them to do that without threatening everything they care about. Before I get into the detail of the bill before us, I want to acknowledge some of the incredible stakeholders who work in this area, who have contributed to pushing the government to the point they've got to and also helping Labor understand what the big issues that remain unsolved in this area are. I want to note the incredible Jeff Morris, who's become something of a celebrity recently. Those watching at home will remember Jeff Morris as one of the first people that blew the whistle on some really problematic behaviour in the Commonwealth Bank. I think most of us in this House would acknowledge that, were it not for people like Jeff Morris, who risked everything they had to call out behaviour that they knew was wrong, we wouldn't have had a banking royal commission. It's actually those incredibly brave people who risked everything, who don't stand in a chamber like this—where it's our job to get up and talk about issues that are problematic in society—but are just normal people going about their business. That man took an incredible risk and he paid an extraordinary toll. If you haven't met Jeff Morris before, google him and read some of the interviews and articles, because he is the case study for why we need to encourage more people to come forward, but we need to be able to provide a system that protects them. I think we'd all acknowledge that the law was not where it needed to be when Jeff Morris made his disclosures and that some of the things that have happened to him should never have happened to him. I want to acknowledge a couple of other groups and individuals who are really active in the policy discussion about this area of law. Professor AJ Brown is one of those individuals and is known to many legislators in this parliament. The Law Council of Australia engaged very strongly in all of these debates and discussions. Transparency International have been very active. Also, the Australian Council of Trade Unions have worked very hard to push whistleblowing regulation further in Australia. Labor has a really longstanding commitment to enhancing whistleblower protections. In fact, I think in this area of whistleblowing you see on both sides of politics essentially a continuation of our fundamental beliefs about this kind of law. In government, we introduced the landmark Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, which provided a whole new suite of measures to protect public sector whistleblowers. As I mentioned just a few weeks ago, we announced that a Shorten Labor government, if elected, would completely overhaul whistleblowing laws in Australia and introduce a range of really substantial, positive law reform. We are committed to strengthening protections for whistleblowers and we're going to continue to push the government to up its game in this area. I mentioned that this bill was introduced into the parliament in 2017. The bill, which was first proposed by the government, was nowhere near where it is today. It was quite a weak and ineffective bill. Indeed, it failed to match the substance and detail of the whistleblower protections included in the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, and it fell short of providing the protections that whistleblowers need and deserve. I mentioned Professor AJ Brown earlier in my remarks; he is a world expert in whistleblowing laws. His commentary on the government's original proposal was to describe the original bill as 'a limited step, more a sideways rather than a forward step on key issues'—not exactly a glowing endorsement. The member for Mayo is in the chamber at the moment. Centre Alliance were quite critical of the initial bill and worked with a lot of stakeholders to successfully drag the government to where it's arrived at today in the chamber. So it's a bit frustrating that we didn't start there, but, of course, as Labor people, we don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and we're glad that we're at a spot where we've got some good reforms that we can support. They don't go nearly far enough, but we are seeing improvements. The way in which this debate has transpired and the slow and plodding manner with which the government has marched to the position they've finally reached here unfortunately does replicate a range of instances where the government has been slow or unwilling to react to corporate misconduct. One of the best examples, for sure, of that at the moment is the way that the government reacted to calls for the banking royal commission. In the chamber, we saw them vote against the banking royal commission 26 times. For 600 days, not only did the government say it didn't want a banking royal commission, but it really pulled out every trick in the book to stop it from happening. The number of ancillary inquiries and little bits and pieces of law reform that were put in place just to stop the actual probity of a royal commission is really embarrassing. If only they fought as hard for Australians to access health care and education as they do to protect the big banks from proper accountability. They were wrong on the banking royal commission and they were wrong about whistleblowers, and both times they had to be dragged into action. I want to quote Jeff Morris here, whom I mentioned before, who stated: I guess I see this as a bit of a parallel thing to the banking royal commission, where the government's finally, kicking and screaming, bowed to the inevitable and had a banking royal commission … One of the best ways we can ensure that misconduct in corporations is prevented, detected and punished is to have strong, effective whistleblowing practices. I said before that we probably wouldn't have a banking royal commission if we didn't have whistleblowers like Jeff Morris who were willing to make disclosures under a regime that didn't provide proper protections. And there are lots of instances where corporate misconduct that's probably occurring right now wouldn't be occurring if we had a better regime in place. For too long, whistleblowers have been silenced. They've been subject to reprisals, to harassment, to absolutely appalling treatment, often by the employer who is doing the wrongdoing and trying to shut them down in some way or another. The current system operates as an enormous disincentive for whistleblowers to come forward. I have sat down with people who have blown the whistle before and who act as a support network for other people who see the type of wrongdoing that we're discussing today. They've said to me that when a whistleblower comes to them and says, 'I've got a disclosure: I can see that some illegal conduct is occurring in my workplace; what do I do?' the experienced whistleblower will say to them, 'Are you willing to lose everything?' That's actually the threshold test: are your values going to drive you so far that you're actually willing to sacrifice everything that's important to you to blow the whistle?' And I have to say, I think there are a lot of us who wouldn't go ahead because we care too much about those things. That's not just bad for whistleblowers, of course, who have to sit there and know that misconduct is occurring and aren't really able to do anything about it; it's absolutely terrible for all of us as Australians, because it means that the kind of mistreatment, law-breaking and misconduct that's been going on in those big organisations and big companies is allowed to proliferate and continue. So, we need whistleblowers to come forward to help our regulators and law enforcement agencies to detect and punish this conduct. Jeff Morris has argued that whistleblowers are 'the last line of defence in corporate governance'. That's why Labor believes so passionately that we need to be doing a lot more—this bill, but a lot more—to protect those people and encourage them to come forward. I will turn now to some of the elements of the bill that I want to draw to the attention of the House. The government amendments that were moved in the Senate significantly improve that original bill that was put forward in 2017. I want to acknowledge the work of Centre Alliance in improving that bill. There's no way the government would have come to this position on their own. They had to get the votes of Centre Alliance in the Senate, and they were able to make a deal, and that involved improving whistleblower protections. The political process isn't always pretty. It doesn't always look how we want it to look. But the reality is that we've arrived here with a better bill than we had in 2017. The most important amendment that the government made to this bill in the Senate was the amendment to allow whistleblowers to make a claim for compensation when a body corporate breaches a duty it owes to the whistleblower to present a third person engaging in detrimental conduct towards them. This is really expanding the scope of protection and compensation where bad things are done. The law can't always undo them, but we can provide some type of recompense to the person who has been hurt. Again, in the conversations that I have had with whistleblowers, every time I speak to a whistleblower I hear over and over again how they suffered from reprisals and victimisation from colleagues and how their workplaces failed to protect them. The duty that I've described here, which is now contained in the bill before us, will make it really clear to companies that they need to protect whistleblowers—that that's actually their duty. The amended bill will also ensure that a court making a compensation order considers the period a person is likely to be without employment when they lose their job for whistleblowing. This is really important, because we know that some people can suffer such severe reprisals when they try to blow the whistle on the corporation they're employed by that they might never work again. There are multiple instances where companies that are upset because an employee has blown the whistle on them have created a situation where that person can never work in that industry again. If it's a bank, for example, they might go to every other bank CEO in the country and say, 'Don't employ this person.' They might make things up. These are the sorts of instances that were the subject of the committee inquiry that was done on this bill. This bill allows us to properly compensate that person. If they are literally never going to work again as a consequence of the decision they made to blow the whistle, then it's possible that under this new law they might be compensated for that time. The bill only goes some way towards protecting whistleblowers, so Labor welcomes the requirement for a post-implementation review of the amended whistleblower laws five years after the amendments commence. That will be a really important opportunity for all of us in this parliament to step back, five years on from the royal commission, and ask ourselves whether we have actually created a system where corporate wrongdoing is properly held to account. The fact is that this bill is probably the last thing we will hear from the Morrison government on whistleblowers, for various reasons—one of them being the part-time parliament, which is unfortunately preventing us from dealing with a lot of laws that are quite similar to this one. Unfortunately, we've not even seen the government respond to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report on whistleblower protections which was released about a year ago. The original bill was lodged in the parliament in 2017, and then we had the PJC report the following year. Instead of responding to the critical recommendations that were made in that report, over and above what we have here, to provide a better system for whistleblowers, the government has instead focused on things like running a protection racket for the big banks, and voting against Labor's amendments to crack down on corporate crime, including higher jail sentences for the most serious corporate crimes and higher fines for misconduct. We in the Labor Party have taken a very different approach. I'm sure you as a local member, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, agree that, when you go out into your community, the Australian people right now are screaming for a fairer system and a fairer society. That means that, when people in big organisations break the law, if they're the CEO or they sit in the senior executive suite, they should be subject to accountability, just like any individual would when they break the law. And whistleblowers are an extremely important part of that, because one of the differences between robbing a bank and the bank robbing you is that, when a bank robs you, it's usually quite easy for them to hide their crime. It's hard for those of us outside those big organisations to know that a crime has occurred, especially very quickly after it has happened. So we rely on whistleblowers, to some degree, to help us find wrongdoing. That's why Labor, in the debate on these limited additional protections for whistleblowers, has said that a future Shorten Labor government is going to change very significantly the protection regime around whistleblowers at the moment. I want to talk through just briefly some of the key elements of the scheme that Labor would set up if we were elected to government. Absolutely the most important aspect of it is that a future Shorten Labor government would set up a whistleblowing rewards scheme. This would be a way for us to incentivise whistleblowers to come forward. Instead of just telling whistleblowers, 'We might be able to protect you from reprisals; we might be able to compensate you for some of the harm done,' we'd be saying to them, 'You are our partner in fighting corporate crime, and, if you are able to provide disclosures and information that will lead to very significant penalties, then you will get a share of some of those penalties.' This is a really important step forward. It's not one I expect those on the other side of the parliament to support, but I do believe that every Australian who accepts that there is too much crime happening in corporate Australia, that the level of white-collar crime in our country is just too high, thinks we need to do something significant about it, and this is the sort of thing that is going to provide additional protections for us. We're also, if elected, going to establish a whistleblower protection authority. That might sound a little bit bureaucratic, but imagine that you're a whistleblower—that you know something, you know that some wrong has been done. At the moment there's not really anyone, anywhere, who is there just to help you, working for government. There are different whistleblower schemes for different types of workplaces, and there's no-one who is just there to protect your interests. This proposal would establish such a body so that if you have a disclosure to make—you know that some wrongdoing's occurred—there's actually one organisation that you can call. They can provide you with advice about where you might go to make a disclosure. They can explain to you how to make a protected disclosure—that is, one that is going to sit you within the confines of the protections that exist. They can explain a reward scheme, if a reward scheme exists at the time, and they can help you tackle the reprisals that might come within your workplace. So, if your boss tries to sack you, they'll be able to give you some advice about what your rights might be. If your colleagues start to harass you, to ostracise you—as so often happens in the case of whistleblowers—then you've got someone on the end of the phone whose only obligation, really, while abiding by the law, is to support you and help you understand what is inevitably a very complicated system. In the same vein as trying to simplify and make that whistleblowing system really easy to use, we're going to bring the relevant whistleblowing laws together into one federal act. That means that for people who are trying to find information about what their rights are—because they will probably differ between public and private systems; that's appropriate, given the various contexts—they'll be able to much more easily find the relevant system that applies to them and the laws that are going to govern their disclosure. Finally, we are going to fund a special prosecutor to bring corporate criminals to justice. In all these fancy policy law reform discussions we have in this parliament, there's a very basic fact: if there's not enough money to do things, then nothing happens; it doesn't matter what the law looks like. In fact, there are vast swathes of federal criminal law that we pass in this parliament and make great speeches about that are never enforced because the dollars aren't there to do it. What we're talking about here is making sure that we get those additional disclosures by providing additional support to whistleblowers as well as making sure that there's additional funding there for the crimes that come to various agencies and that those can properly be enforced. This of course relates very directly to Labor's call for a banking royal commission. That highlighted an appalling extent of misconduct, even criminal misconduct, in the banking sector. It's all well and good for politicians to now rage on about how outrageous it is, but what we really need is dollars in the right places to make sure that those crimes are properly acknowledged and that people are held accountable. From talking to Australians in the days that have followed the banking royal commission's final report, I think they're happy. They're pleased that there's a program of law reform there. But people are saying to me: 'Where's the accountability? We've got a former High Court judge who's told us that a whole lot of wrongdoing has occurred, but we haven't seen anyone actually being held to account.' This is the sort of reform that's needed to make sure that does occur. I've noted some of the concerns and some of the difficulties that whistleblowers face, and the truth is that today there are a lot of Australians who see wrongdoing and want to stop it but, for them, blowing the whistle isn't worth the risk—and it's only not worth the risk because the cost of doing so is enormous; it is so high. That shouldn't be the case. Labor doesn't want to see good people getting punished when they're just trying to do the right thing and help other Australians. That's why we are supporting the bill before the House, but, as I've noted, we are also going quite significantly further. I've said that, if elected, Labor will establish a rewards scheme to make it easier for people to come forward in instances of crime and misconduct. That scheme will allow whistleblowers to receive a percentage of the penalties arising out of the wrongdoing that they reveal. When a company or individual faces financial penalties for their crimes or misconduct as a result of whistleblowing, the whistleblowing reward scheme will allow a portion of the penalty to be given as a reward to the whistleblower. I think that is a very significant step forward for our whistleblowing protection supports here in Australia. Before we move off that subject, I want to address one of the principal criticisms that's come from the government on this, because of course we come out with a proposal to strengthen the action against white-collar crime and the government has to say it's a bad idea. One of the issues has been around whether the whistleblower has, in fact, played some part in the wrongdoing. There is a lot of flexibility that needs to be given to regulators to help determine how much of a reward would be given to a whistleblower. Of course, if a whistleblower has been there right from the beginning and they've benefited from a whole lot of misconduct and then at the last minute, perhaps feeling that they were going to get caught out, comes forward and says that they were part of this and they expect to get a reward, of course that person is not going to get a reward. But what we are really focused on are the people who haven't done the wrong thing—and there are a lot of them—but see wrongdoing done in their workplaces. We all acknowledge on this side of the House that the current system is not providing enough support for those people today. So we are really trying to think about how we can make a big step change in how we approach this overall issue of corporate misconduct and white-collar crime in our country. I've talked about the notion of a whistleblower protection authority—sort of like a one-stop-shop for people who need the protection of whistleblowing schemes. This was a recommendation of the PJC report that I referred to before. We have had one of the highest-performing committees in this parliament conduct a really thorough review of whistleblowing protection laws. It made a whole range of recommendations. I don't know if any of them were picked up in the bill that's before us, but certainly not the really significant structural ones. That's been a little bit disappointing. We have leaned very heavily on that work and that report in constructing our own response to whistleblowing protections. Labor's proposed whistleblowing protection authority would have dedicated staff to advise whistleblowers on their rights, to assist them through the disclosure process and to help them access compensation if they face reprisals. We call on the government to come up with us on this. I know in recent days, listening to the government, you might feel that there has been something of an evangelical change of heart about what's going on in banking. I don't buy that for a second, because I don't think you can change the DNA of a political party overnight even if you have had a royal commission. But here is an opportunity for the government to show that they are serious about tackling these embedded corporate culture issues in some of our industries here in Australia. Come with us on these whistleblowing protections. We think they're really important and are going to make a big difference to tackling this area of crime. More broadly, Labor believes that whistleblowers need to be treated the same, that it's not really appropriate for us, without real justification, to have wildly different protections in place in different types of our economy, industries and workplaces. The legislation as it stands improves the private sector regime but it just lets these kind of opaque patchwork protections for whistleblowers which exist to continue. That means that it's really hard for whistleblowers to work out what protections are available to them before the law. That's just not appropriate. Whistleblowers are not always legal experts, nor should they be. They're ordinary Australians. The law should work better for them than it does today. What we need beyond this bill—far beyond this bill—is comprehensive law reform in the area of whistleblowing protections. That's why Labor have announced that we will go much further than this bill. If elected, we will create an Australian whistleblowing act, consolidating all mainstream whistleblowing legislation into one location so that whistleblowers can readily understand how they are protected. This is the major shake-up that Australia's whistleblowing regime needs, because the status quo isn't working. It isn't working for whistleblowers. It isn't working for lawmakers. It isn't working for regulators. It isn't working for ordinary Australians and consumers. The rip-offs that we have heard about in the royal commission are the tip of the iceberg. Labor is committed to cracking down on misconduct, on crime and on corruption. We want to support the wonderful Australians who blow the whistle when they see the wrong thing, because they do make Australia a better and fairer place. We will be supporting this bill. We call on the government to match our commitment to whistleblowers. We've seen some of minor improvements to the regime here. Mainly, they were brought into this bill because of the hard work of Centre Alliance in pushing the government to actually doing something that's going to make a difference here, and I commend the work of the member for Mayo and the Centre Alliance senators in the other place for what they were able to get out of this. It's good to see some improvements but, for a system which is fundamentally struggling, I think we need to do significantly better. That's why I'm really proud that Labor's taken this really strong stance and said that, instead of making piecemeal changes and fixing this little bit and that little bit, let's step back and say that there are some huge aspects of our regime today that are not protecting Australians from corporate crime, they're not protecting Australians from white-collar criminals, and there's absolutely no reason why people, just because they put on a suit and tie every day— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 42 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Canberra Electorate: Operation School Supplies 42 13:30 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Canberran students went back to school last week, and in anticipation I made a call to action to my community—a call to action to take part in my Operation School Supplies campaign; a call to action to help families doing it tough, particularly after Christmas; a call to action to ease the pressure on those families through donations of stationery, drink bottles, lunch boxes, backpacks and calculators; a call to action in response to the real need identified by the Gordon Community Centre and the YWCA Mura Lanyon Youth and Community Centre. A few days after I dropped off a mountain of supplies, I received this beautiful letter from Gordon Community Centre: We have been able to give out so many of the items already. In particular we were able to help a mother of a large family with one child in hospital. She's struggling with the expense of getting back and forth from the hospital and hadn't bought any school supplies. We were also able to help a single dad who has just got housing for himself and his three children—he's sleeping on the couch so each of his children has their own room. Their faces lit up when I let them know we had a supply of brand new, back to school items. I also sent off a backpack with one of my colleagues which will be given to a young carer who is supporting a member of their family. I want to share my thanks with the people of Canberra. Thank you for taking part in this campaign. A big shout-out goes to Georgina Warren, who interned in our office and helped me and my team coordinate it. (Time expired) Dividend Imputation 42 13:31 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan It is now obvious to all Australians that Labor are passionate about wreaking havoc on our very way of life. They are determined to grab your hard-earned money. Consider the 900,000 Australians impacted by Labor's proposed retiree tax. That is almost one million Australian retirees who will lose approximately $2,200, on average, per year. Almost 200,000 self-funded retirees stand to lose, on average, around $12,000 per year. At a recent public hearing of the Standing Committee on Economics in Brisbane, attendees were not backward in their criticism of this predatory policy. For those who are in transition to retirement, newly retired or well established in their later years, the committee heard about the significant financial impost Labor's policy would have on their way of life. The Cancer Council, which shared the sentiment of many other charities, voiced their concerns about the ability of retirees to make much-needed donations. With less income as a result of Labor's ill-thought-out policy, retirees will soon reduce their donations. If Labor and their union bosses ever again govern our country, retirees' financial security is at risk. As one submitter, Noel, said, 'This is a cruel and unfair grab for tax.' Same old Labor: more taxes and higher taxes.' Macquarie Electorate: Inclusive Playgrounds 42 13:33 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Towards the end of last year, I was outside Springwood Public School talking to mums and dads as they dropped their kids off, discussing how much better off their school will be under a federal Labor government if we win the next election, with our $14 million of extra funding for my local schools, when one of the mums asked me about something else that is equally important to her. You see, Jane's four kids have varying abilities, and she told me how her family, and other families like hers, are desperate for a playground that's built to cater for all those abilities—one they don't have to travel a long distance to. The vision that Jane and I share is for a playground whose concept and design is created by working closely with those who'll use it most. It's for locals, so it needs to be somewhere that attracts less of the tourist traffic; a place they can spend not just an hour but a whole morning, even a day; a place that is fully inclusive; a safe space where every child, no matter what their ability, can play. They need to be able to feel the joy of swinging high or the challenge of balancing or the thrill of spinning round and round—so a place that suits their physical ability and their intellectual or emotional capacities. Building playgrounds in the Blue Mountains, which doesn't have a lot of flat land and has very little vacant land, does pose a challenge. Blue Mountains councillors have a commitment to increasing inclusion and have been upgrading playgrounds, both equipment and access, and Rotary is in there helping too. But I won't stop until we get the playground the Blue Mountains deserves, and I know the community will be with me on this. Dividend Imputation 43 13:34 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper I rise to bring to the attention of the House the concerns of my constituents about Labor's retiree tax. Cowper has an older demographic. Many of them are self-funded retirees who have worked hard all their life, scrimping and saving to build a nest egg for their retirement. What does the Australian Labor Party propose to do? It proposes to rob them. It proposes to rob their retirement by way of this unfair tax. It is an outrage that this is being hatched on our self-funded retirees. These retirees have worked so hard. What does the Labor Party say to do? The shadow Treasurer arrogantly says, 'If you don't like our retiree tax, don't vote for Labor.' I think that's probably one of the first sensible things that the member for McMahon has said. He said, 'If you don't like the retiree tax, don't vote for Labor at the next election.' I couldn't agree more. In the seat of Cowper, it is a little bit more complicated because we have an alleged Independent candidate running. I say 'alleged' because he propped up the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government for years. It is a little bit more complicated. If you don't want the retiree tax, don't vote Labor. But don't vote for the Independent candidate, who will also deliver you a Labor government. Migration, National Basketball Association 43 13:36 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I rise today to claim victory on the occasion of Australian Ben Simmons' selection in the 2019 NBA All-Star Game that is being held this weekend in Charlotte, North Carolina. Last year I used the outrageous exclusion of Ben Simmons from the 2018 NBA All-Star Game as an opportunity to draw attention to the golden generation of Australians currently playing in the NBA and the way that these extraordinary Aussies truly represent the confident, modern nation we have become. We are a nation of migrants and the most successful multicultural nation on earth. Last year I noted that, of the nine Australians in the NBA, there was an Indigenous Australian, four children of migrants and two refugees. This year, I am very pleased to report that there are now a record 11 Australians in the NBA. They include another refugee, Deng Adelaide. He is a South Sudanese refugee who moved with his family to Sunshine, in my electorate, and started his basketball journey at the mighty Sunshine Longhorns. Deng is now following in the footsteps of another South Sudanese refugee to Australia, Thon Maker, and is now playing with the Cleveland Cavaliers, alongside Aussie legend and NBA champion Matthew Dellavedova. There has been a lot of nonsense said about migrants and refugees in this parliament recently. But let me tell you, ball don't lie. These players show that immigration is nation-building and that Australia is made stronger by saying welcome to immigrants from around the world. Our diversity makes our country stronger. Wallis, Constable Brodie 43 13:37 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I want to thank and acknowledge our Australian state and federal police for their commitment, dedication and professionalism. I want to acknowledge Constable Brodie Wallis from the South West District of the Western Australia Police Force, who in November of 2014 dived into a quarry at Greenbushes Pool to rescue a man who had got into difficulties while swimming. Constable Wallis had to locate the man in very dark water, but managed to drag him to shore with the help of a paramedic and performed CPR. Tragically, the man was unable to be revived. However, Constable Wallis received a letter from the deceased man's family, thanking him for his efforts. This helped him to cope with the aftermath of this tragic event. There are immediate and cumulative effects, both mental and physical, for our officers in the incidents they deal with on a daily basis. In another example of Constable Wallis's bravery, just eight weeks after this, he and his colleague Constable Ian Harris entered a burning building in Bunbury to rescue a mother and daughter who were trapped inside. This is another example of our police men and women who go beyond the call of duty in order to save Australian lives. In November last year, Constable Wallis received the highest honour at the Western Australia Police Force Commissioner's Bravery Awards, when he was one of four officers to receive the Cross for Bravery. This honour is awarded for an act of most conspicuous courage, whereby the person placed themselves in peril and at risk of significant personal injury or death. I congratulate Constable Brodie Wallis for this outstanding achievement and would like to take this opportunity to thank all our policemen and women, not just those in the South West but those across Australia. Northern Territory: Sri Lankan Community 44 13:39 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The Northern Territory is very fortunate indeed to be enriched by the contributions of the wonderful, hardworking Sri Lankan community. It was an absolute pleasure to join them for their independence day celebrations on the weekend. I want to congratulate all the organisers of that wonderful event, in particular the kids, who put on fantastic plays, and the excellent speakers, including the acknowledgement of the significant contribution of Dr Gerwin Samarawickrema to our community. To all those who prepared such wonderful, amazing food: thank you very much. The Sri Lanka Australia Friendship Association do a great job. They're ably led by their president Mr Nishantha Wijesinghe, their vice-president Mr Aravinda Senarath, their secretary Mr Weheragoda, their treasurer Mrs Pinto, their public officer Mr Kumarasena and the other committee members: Mr Muthumala, Mr Bandara, Mr Kulasekara, Mrs Edirisingha, Mr Dissanayake, Mr Athukorale, Mr Ranaweera, Mr Perera and Mr Gunaratne. The Sri Lankan community provide wonderful celebrations of their great republic, but they're proud Territorians. I was proud to join them for their very significant day. North Toowoomba Bowls Club 44 13:41 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom On 6 February it was my very great pleasure to join the president of the North Toowoomba Bowls Club, Mr Cameron King, to announce funding of some $65,000 under the coalition government's Move It AUS Community Sport Infrastructure grants program. The reason I talk about this is that the North Toowoomba Bowls Club is a magnificent local community organisation. It has more than 110 club members, but so many organisations throughout our city use the North Toowoomba Bowls Club facilities. This grant, in particular, will go towards the construction of a 15-metre-by-six-metre outdoor undercover area. The area will be complete with a deck on the roof as a viewing platform, which will greatly assist those who are supporting their friends and family entering into bowls competitions—there are quite a few at this facility. Other groups that use North Toowoomba Bowls Club include the Harlaxton RSL, which bases many of its activities there, particularly the Harlaxton RSL Brass Band. Since the early 1990s this band has supported community activities, in particular RSL memorial services right across our community, and continues to do so. This program supports social and health benefits right across the community for young and old. You can only do that when you run a strong and responsible government focused on a strong economy. Judith's Walk 44 13:42 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. Recently I went to Aldinga to have a cup of tea with Dean Rowe at a morning tea, held at TerryWhite Chemmart, organised in honour of Dean's late wife, Judith, who lost her battle with ovarian cancer in March 2017. It was one of many fundraisers organised by Dean. His signature event is a six-kilometre community walk held each February—it will be on 24 February this year—called Judith's Walk. It aims to raise awareness for ovarian cancer, which is sometimes referred to as the 'silent killer' because it is such a difficult cancer to detect. We know that more than 1,600 new cases of ovarian cancer are found every year. Dean's wife, Judith, was diagnosed in 2015 when she was 80. After treatment, Judith went into remission but then the cancer came back with a vengeance. Dean was devastated. He and Judith had been married for 60 years and had built a life together, and a life of community service. Dean and Judith were regular walkers from Willunga to McLaren Vale and back, and that is why Dean has organised Judith's Walk. Dean has raised more than $20,000 for Ovarian Cancer Australia and the Cancer Council this year. Congratulations, Dean. I'm happy to do my bit to help you in raising awareness for ovarian cancer. Congratulations to Con, the owner of TerryWhite Chemmart; thank you for hosting Dean's morning tea. I look forward to working with Dean and Judith's Walk. It's a great memory for Judith. Tangney Electorate: Rossmoyne Bowling Club 44 13:44 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney In Tangney, the Rossmoyne Bowling Club will formally celebrate its 60th anniversary with a special dinner to mark this diamond achievement with family and friends. Formed at a public meeting attended by 25 local residents in 1959, Rossmoyne Bowling Club is now home to over 350 active members. The club hosts more than 1,000 visiting players each year for competition and pennant games, and hundreds of people spend time at the club for social bowls, Friday dinners and club events. Club volunteers also give back to their club and to our community by coaching and mentoring local high school students. There were 93 training sessions last year, supporting 650 students from my community, and there are just as many planned for 2019. I've been so pleased to work with Rossmoyne Bowling Club members to access federal grants for bathroom upgrades to provide better disability access in their facilities, and there is more excellent news today. I'm happy to announce a Safer Communities grant for this club of $4,000 for improved security lighting to give members and visitors safer access to the club and car park. Congratulations to Rossmoyne Bowling Club members on your 60th anniversary. Your club is well respected in the Perth bowling community, and I look forward to celebrating your very special 60th anniversary with you on Saturday night. Western United Football Club 45 13:45 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today to congratulate Melbourne's newest A-League club. The Western Melbourne Group was officially granted a new licence in December last year from the Football Federation Australia to enter the A-League for the 2019-20 season. This morning, they've announced that they'll be called Western United, and they'll wear the great colours of green and black. I know that the member for Gellibrand celebrates, as I do, that we will have an A-League team in the western suburbs of Melbourne, but, as the member for Lalor, knowing that the home for this club will be Tarneit brings joy to my heart. I've never followed the beautiful game. I've never followed football. I now have a club. I want to congratulate Steve Horvat, Maurice Bisetto, Lou Sticca, Andrew Zinni and, of course, Wyndham City Council's Kate Roffey, who worked tirelessly to secure the licence and prepare a precinct plan that will deliver a boutique stadium in Tarneit in the electorate of Lalor. I want to congratulate the Gillard government and the then minister for infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, for their foresight in delivering a regional rail link that means this precinct can come to life. People from all over the western suburbs, who've come to live there from all over the world, will be able to come to the Tarneit Stadium to watch Western United play the beautiful game—their beautiful game! Kids from all over the west of Melbourne will have something to aspire to. I want to congratulate all involved. South-East Queensland 45 13:47 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I rise today to say thank you to the Prime Minister and his executive for announcing this week that the federal government will do a city deal with South-East Queensland. There's no doubt that this government is already delivering enormously for South-East Queensland, but there's more to do. We have to ensure that we stay ahead of the population curve in one of the fastest-growing regions in the country. We have to ensure that, while we respect each distinct community and their needs, from the Gold Coast to the Sunny Coast and from Ipswich to Toowoomba, we also need to improve the connectivity across those communities, across South-East Queensland. That's where a city deal comes in. It's vitally important to have a future vision for what South-East Queensland needs to be and a road map to get there. And the only way to do that is in a united fashion, where you have all three tiers of government—local councils, the state government and the federal government—working as one on a set deal process. That's the only way too that we can maximise the gains for residents and unlock private capital to make it happen. Today is a big day, because I can get on my feet and celebrate that an SEQ deal is on the way. Queensland: Floods 45 13:48 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert Clearly, Townsville has experienced one of our worst natural disasters in recorded history, with more than 22,000 homes being affected by devastating floods. People's lives have been turned completely upside down. This is an incredibly distressing and trying time for the people of Townsville. Now more than ever we need to keep an eye on family members, neighbours, friends, and also those who are alone or isolated in our community. The extreme heat and humidity plays a significant role in wearing people down and stress levels will rise. Mental wellbeing will be affected. The highly successful Operation Compass #CheckYourMates Christmas campaign has been extended into the recovery process underway in the city. As Townsville is the largest garrison city in Australia, I know that many currently-serving and ex-serving veterans and their families have been affected by the floods. Just last week I made calls to war widows with the great Legacy volunteers to check that they were okay or if they needed help. Sometimes we can help by simply lending a listening ear. There is nothing more powerful than being totally in the presence of the other and truly listening. ADF members and veterans are asked to check their mates. The campaign motto is 'yarn and motivate'. I believe that all residents could engage in this campaign in this incredibly distressing and difficult time. The disaster and clean-up will take its toll on people's mental wellbeing, so we must be vigilant and reach out to those who may not be coping very well, but that also means being in touch with your own distress levels. Caring for each other will get us through this tough time. Wide Bay Electorate: Sport 46 13:50 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Last week I visited the Maryborough and District Hockey Association, to meet with President Tony Quaill, the committee and their talented players and to announce a $426,000 investment by the Liberal-National government through the Community Sport Infrastructure program. Maryborough has a proud hockey tradition, and the grant will be used to upgrade Maryborough hockey's indoor sports centre with new flooring, LED lighting and spectator facilities, to increase skills in a new generation of players and encourage existing players to reach their full potential. Once completed, the facility will be large enough to host national championships for hockey as well as other sports, including netball, futsal and volleyball. This will boost local sporting tourism and the local economy. Before the Christmas break I also visited the Kandanga Tennis Club to have a hit of tennis with my mate Senior Sergeant Bill Greer. While there, I announced a grant of $160,000 to be used for new lighting and fencing and a new court surface. The old bitumen surface will be replaced with a synthetic surface, reducing the impact on the players. It was also a pleasure to announce $23,000 to the Noosa District Softball Association and $30,000 for a new power supply to the Widgee District Hall. I congratulate all those who had a successful application and wish them well in their future endeavours. Shipping 46 13:52 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo It's quite sad, and maybe many of those opposite didn't notice this, but this week we've had quite a few seafarers out on the lawn at Parliament House. They're not there by choice. If they had a choice, they'd still be working. But, like so many other seafarers in our country, they've been sacked and replaced with a foreign crew, and their industry hasn't gone anywhere. They were involved in shipping coal. Now, looking out the window of a plane, you see the ships with coal lined up, whether you're in Queensland, Newcastle or South-East Asia. There is coal still being shipped from Australia to the rest of the world, yet the number of Australian seafarers that are getting the benefit of that is reducing. They've been here this week raising this issue, calling on this government to do more for the shipping industry. When will this government step in and step up to help Australian seafarers? We are an island nation, and it is a disgrace that we don't have a strong, proud Australian seafaring workforce. It's time the government stopped looking after their big multinational mates in BHP and BlueScope and started working with workers like our seafarers. Like so many on the Labor side, I stand with these workers and commit to them to do all we can to rebuild a shipping industry in this country that employs Australian seafarers first. Flynn Electorate: Community Services 46 13:53 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I had pleasure last week in announcing some funding for my electorate. Senator Bridget McKenzie informed me through her Community Sport Infrastructure grants program that Callide United Football Club had received a cheque for $199,999 to benefit their lighting program around the circuit. She threw in $1 extra out of her purse—and I thank her very much for that—to make it a nice, round $200,000. Mr Conroy 249127 Did she declare it? Mr O'DOWD 139441 She would have declared it. It was to replace the old lights, which were 30 years old. So that will mean that they can play competition games at night, and, of course, night training will also come into play. I also secured funding for the aged-care sector in Flynn: $475,000 to Blue Care Edenvale at Gladstone, an aged-care facility; $455,000 for the Ridgehaven Retirement Complex in Monto; and $400,000 for aged-care services at a facility in Moura. This was gratefully received, and I thank the minister, Ken Wyatt, who has visited my electorate and had no doubt seen the need to help these establishments with this extra funding, which will, of course, look after people who have come to the age where they have to get out of their homes and go into aged-care facilities. Pensions and Benefits 46 13:55 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley It's been with a degree of wonder that I've been watching the coalition discover their care for the financial wellbeing of older Australians, and then I suddenly realised: when you look at five years of their track record, they've never cared! Look at what they've done to pensions. In their first year, 2014, they cut the pension indexation. Then they cut a billion dollars from pensioner concessions. Then they axed the $900 seniors supplement. And then they tried to reset deeming-rate thresholds. That was the first year. In 2015, they did a deal with the Greens to cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners, and then they tried to cut the pension to around another 200,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel. Then they spent the bulk of their time trying to cut the energy supplement to pensioners, which would have left over half a million Australians worse off, and they've spent years trying to get us to have a retirement age of 70. Let's be clear: under the coalition, if you're an older Australian with a pension, you're a target for a cut. But, if you're an older Australian with a bumper share portfolio, you're a target for party fundraising. As the member for Lalor says: they're about big share portfolios, big banks and the big end of town, but they never care for those people who don't have the means to look after themselves. Nangwarry Football Club 47 13:56 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Nangwarry is small town of around 500 people in the south-east of South Australia, and what it lacks in size it makes up for in community spirit. The Nangwarry Saints football club was once a powerhouse of the Mid South Eastern Football League, winning four flags between 1993 and 1999. Sadly, it's been more than four years since they've won a game, and in recent times their average losing margin was some 195 points. Almost as if to rub salt into the wound, on 9 January fire destroyed the Saints' clubrooms, which they share with the Saints Netball Club. It's a suspected case of arson—not confirmed. But I've got to point out that the $500,000 worth of damage is real. And it's not just the clubrooms. It's not just the bricks and mortar. It's 54 years of memorabilia lost. Nangwarry has been the target of a number of arson attacks. Indeed, there have been 10 fires since 2015. I very much hope that the criminals who are lighting these fires are brought to justice soon. I want to put a shout-out to the other teams in the league, who are coming together to support the Nangwarry Football Club. Recently we had members from the eight other teams supporting them at a training event. Our community is coming together to help the Saints rebuild, and I'm looking forward to doing everything I can to help them get their first win in a long time and to rebuild their clubrooms. Indigenous Education 47 13:58 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to note the government's announcements today on Indigenous education and say that I'm sure that every member of this chamber supports the effort to close the gap in education. But there is so much more that we could do. The government should not have axed the More Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Teachers Initiative when it came to office—a program that helped Indigenous Australians become teachers working in their own communities. The government should match our plan to restore the $14 billion cut from public schools—big funding increases for our neediest schools, including schools with high Indigenous enrolments—because public schools teach 84 per cent of Indigenous students, and around 80 per cent of Indigenous Australians live in urban areas. Indigenous Australians have to have a great education no matter where they live. The remote Warruwi school in the Northern Territory, which the member for Warringah visited last year, has about 80 students, 100 per cent of whom are Indigenous. They would get an extra $180,000 of funding under the first three years of a Labor government alone. The government should commit to funding preschool for four-year-olds, but they should join Labor in extending universal access to preschool to three-year-olds as well. They should match our plan to uncap uni places, because the last time we had uncapped uni places Indigenous enrolments increased by 90 per cent. And they should match our University Future Fund, including the $20 million to build Australia's first Indigenous residential college at the University of Technology in Sydney. Bracken Ridge 47 13:59 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie This Valentine's Day, besides my wife, the suburb of Bracken Ridge holds a little piece of my heart. I grew up in Toolang Street and Talgai Street, Bracken Ridge, and spent much of my childhood running around in Cabbage Tree Creek and training for judo at the local Bracken Ridge Scout Hall. Bracken Ridge is a great place to live for families, sitting on the outskirts of the Brisbane City Council. It has— The SPEAKER 10000 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 47 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Morrison Government 47 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he has dumped his latest signature energy policy today, because he has lost control of the parliament? Can he also confirm that he fronts a minority government, because the Minister for Home Affairs deposed Malcolm Turnbull? Why is Malcolm Turnbull no longer the Prime Minister of Australia? 14:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook What the Leader of the Opposition just put to me at the outset of his question is complete rubbish. That doesn't surprise me, because the Leader of the Opposition is always talking rubbish. He talks rubbish all the time. He talks rubbish in here; he talks rubbish outside of here. We all remember that, at the last election, he went around talking rubbish, saying that we were going to sell Medicare, for goodness sake! I can tell him that bulk-billing and Medicare are at record highs under our government. I can tell him that hospital funding is at a record high and will be in the future under our government. Mr Frydenberg FKL School funding. Mr MORRISON E3L The same goes for school funding; the same goes for infrastructure funding. The budget is coming back into balance, and we will be announcing that on 2 April this year. What we will be doing, as part of our broader economic plan, is ensuring that we're not only meeting our environmental commitments but we're also doing the right thing to get reliable energy into the electricity market. We'll be doing that with the big stick and we'll be doing that with every tool at our disposal. All I know is that the leader of the Labor Party is not prepared to take on the big energy companies— Mr Frydenberg FKL Like with the big banks. Mr MORRISON E3L just like he's not prepared to take on the big banks, because he's going to sell out the mortgage-broking industry and hand the power back to the big banks. The Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Labor Party, is very big on talking rubbish, and he has started off in that vein today. Indigenous Affairs 48 14:02 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is working to close the gap for Indigenous Australians? 14:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question and for her keen interest in this topic, as all members in this chamber are interested in this very important issue of closing the gap for Indigenous Australians. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his remarks today on this matter as well. As I said today, there were three important things in that speech today on closing the gap. The first one is that, while we recognise that the closing the gap process was set up with all the best of motives, it's time to refresh that process by having genuine partnership with Indigenous Australians about what these goals are, what the targets are and, most importantly, what actions need to be taken to achieve these outcomes. That must also be done in partnership with states and territories. The suggestion that any member of this chamber, whether they be the Prime Minister or anyone else, can come in here on an annual basis and pretend to think that they and they alone, or one level of government or one agency, can go about closing the gap in this country is to misunderstand the fundamental challenges we face in this most important of issues for our First Australians. That refresh process is underway. It is about working closely with state and territory governments and, most importantly, working closely with the peak Indigenous organisations. They will be working with those other agencies of governments to ensure we get the refresh process right and we set targets. The second point I made is that, yes, we must close the gap, but we also must stay positive and keep the hope alive about where we're heading. We need to ensure that, every time an Indigenous child gets into school and stays in school, we recognise that as a major change for that young person's life. That will change communities. The same is true whether it comes to housing or getting young and other Indigenous Australians into work, whichever program is used to achieve that outcome. We remain committed to all of those programs which are getting young and other Indigenous Australians into work. As we move forward with the Closing the Gap process we need to have focus. The Prime Minister and the government are going to have that focus. We're going to focus on what the special envoy has recommended, and that is to get Indigenous kids in school and ensure that they stay in school longer. That's why today we've announced our teacher boost for remote Australia, removing all or part of the HELP debt for 3,100 students, to encourage more teachers to work and stay working in very remote areas where the greatest disadvantage exists for Indigenous Australians for education; a youth education package of some $200 million for extra support to give more Indigenous students the support and mentoring they need through their secondary studies; and getting kids to school by working community by community and school by school and investing $5 million in remote and very remote areas for projects that support and promote local school attendance. This is our plan; this is our commitment. Energy 48 14:05 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that today the government dumped its 11th signature energy policy since the last election? Can he also confirm that the government is now crab walking away from its plan to fund new coal-fired power stations and indemnify their operators at a cost to taxpayers of $17 billion per station? When does the government plan to announce its 12th energy policy? 14:06 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Now we've got another member of the Labor Party coming up here and speaking rubbish. It doesn't make it true if you just come up and assert things. It doesn't make it true. We remain committed to our policies that are designed to ensure that there's reliable energy in the grid, that power prices come down and that Australians can have reliability so that their lights stay on—something the member from South Australia would find hard to deal with, given the Labor government in the South Australian parliament at the time ensured that the lights went off, because they were not focused on delivering reliable energy into the system. Our policies are designed to do that. We are now working through the states to ensure we have contracted, reliable energy going into the eastern states electricity market as a result of the reliability guarantee that our government championed and we have put in place. We stand by our policies. We take on those big energy companies to ensure that they're doing the right thing by Australians, but the Labor Party are happy to roll over to them. Those in the Labor Party roll over on lots of things. They roll over on the energy companies. They roll over when it comes to banks when they blow mortgage brokers out of the water. We know they roll over when it comes to keeping Australians safe and secure. They rolled over when it came to protecting our borders. They rolled over to the Greens, the left wing of the Labor Party and others who would seek to undermine our borders. The Labor Party roll over any time anyone comes near them. That's why they cannot be trusted by the Australian people to make Australia stronger—because they are weak, and their weakness will infect this nation. National Security 49 14:08 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister explain to the House what is required for strong borders and for keeping Australians safe and secure? 14:08 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Canning for his question and I thank him for his service, as I do all service men and women in this place and outside of this place and veterans. We thank them for their service. They understand, as I hope all people in this chamber would understand—and I certainly know government members understand—that to have a national security policy to keep Australians safe and secure you need to understand and appreciate the threats that the nation faces, you need to ensure that you have a plan to address those threats—and on Monday this week I outlined to the National Press Club the plan under our government that has been working for Australia to address those threats—and you have to be prepared to resource that plan by ensuring you have economic policies that provide for a stronger economy and that you have the budget management skills to bring the budget back into balance so that you can support those important investments to keep Australians safe and secure. These are all incredibly important elements of having successful national security policy in this country. But there is one thing more important than all of those things. You have to have the conviction to take the action and follow through. That's what you have to have. You've got to have the metal, you've got to have the ticker and you've got to have the resolve to actually see things through and implement these decisions and not roll over to whatever wind may blow you away to make you compromise Australia's national security and trade it away. That will never happen under a Liberal-Nationals coalition government, but it did happen in this place this week by the leader of the Labor Party when he rolled over and compromised and traded away Australia's border protection. I wondered why he would do that, but I think it's pretty simple to understand: you don't value what you never built; you trade away what you don't value. The Labor Party do not value stronger borders, because this week they traded them away. They just threw them away carelessly to try to solve some internal political problem for the leader of the Labor Party, who couldn't stand up to the voices within in his party, let alone those outside his party, to stand up for stronger borders. If you haven't built it, you don't understand and you're happy to let it just fall into disrepair. That is what would happen under this leader of the Labor Party. He is a weak individual when it comes to national security—always going for the lowest common denominator. Every time we have brought legislation on national security into this place, he has always sought to drag it down to the lowest common denominator and then claim some form of bipartisanship. There is not a cigarette paper's difference between us; there is a phonebook when it comes to national security. Energy 49 14:11 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister believes his so-called big stick legislation is so important, why has it been removed from the daily program, and when will he put it to a vote in the parliament? 14:11 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt The program is settled by the Leader of the House in consultation with, of course, ministers and with the Parliamentary Liaison Office. The legislation to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition refers, the divestment bill, is part of that program, and I can confirm that it has not been removed from the Notice Paper. National Disability Insurance Scheme 50 14:12 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to Minister for Families and Social Services. Recently I hosted an NDIS forum where participants shared their frustration at not being allowed to see their draft plan prior to it being submitted by the NDIA, with some plans with the wrong birthdate and name, leading to weeks of delay and exclusion of services, and, worse still, some plans not reflecting what was requested or needed. Twenty-seven-year-old Mitchell has spastic quadriplegia and needs assistive technology to open his front door. Instead, he was given a gym membership. Not being allowed to view the draft plan leaves many feeling disempowered and disrespected. Minister, why won't you let participants view a copy of their draft NDIS plan before it being submitted for approval? 14:13 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I do thank the member for Mayo for her question. She's shown a strong interest in the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and I've enjoyed the opportunity to work with her on a number of cases. In relation to the instances she's mentioned, I will be very happy to speak to her about the specifics of those. The member is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of the plan. It is very important that a plan is developed which meets the needs of the participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We now have 250,000 Australians supported by the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and the process of having their plan developed and finalised is absolutely critical. That's why the National Disability Insurance Agency, under our Liberal-National government, has been working to improve the arrangements in relation to plans. For example, from October of last year, a new general participant pathway was rolled out so that NDIS participants can be assured of having a face-to-face meeting as part of the process of developing their plan, and, of course, as the plan is developed, there's an iterative engagement process with their local area coordinator. That fits with a range of other changes and reforms that we have introduced, including, for example, the enhanced myplace portal, the enhanced provider finder, specialist pathways for participants with particular needs. So in October we announced a new tailored psychosocial disability stream. The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Mayo, on a point of order. Ms Sharkie 265980 It's on relevance. My question is very specific: why can't participants view a copy of their plan before it goes to the NDIA? The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Mayo will resume her seat. As I've pointed out on numerous occasions, in a 45-second question there is more than just one question and even if—Member for Mayo, I'm trying to address your point of order; I don't really want to have a nodding contest with you, if that's okay. So I'll take a little bit of time to do that. In a 45-second question, the member for Mayo might believe there is just one question, but all of the other material that's a nonquestion, strictly speaking, shouldn't be there. I allow it, really just for the smooth functioning of the House, to be honest. But you can't insist that the minister not refer to it. You simply can't. If you want to ask a single question, just ask it. The minister has the call. Mr FLETCHER L6B In relation to plans, the point I'd make to the member is there clearly has to be a point in the process at which the plan is finalised    and provided to the participant. What's very important to be clear on is that, if the participant has concerns about the plan—and of course there will be instances where the plan is not perfect; of course that's the case—then the participant has the opportunity, first of all, to ask for an internal review of the plan. That happens regularly and routinely, and changes are regularly made if it turns out that the review recommends that changes should be made. Then there's also the opportunity to go to the AAT to appeal in terms of the contents of the plan, and that also regularly and routinely happens. I do thank the member for her strong interest in the NDIS, now serving some 250,000 Australians. There are always improvements we can make and we are working hard to make continuing improvements—improving the participant pathway; new specialised participant pathways, where appropriate; and continuing to deliver a fundamental reform, now supporting some 250,000 Australians, transforming and improving lives. National Security 50 14:17 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of maintaining Australia's strong and consistent border protection policies? Is the minister aware of any threats to the integrity of Australia's borders? 14:17 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for Bonner for his question. Everybody on this side of the House understands that you need to get border protection right. We need to make sure that we don't see kids drown at sea or go into detention. This government has worked day and night to stop people arriving illegally by boat. We've got the kids out of detention. We have closed 19 detention centres. We don't want to see a return to the desperate days when Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard were in control of the Labor Party, but I fear we are watching a re-run of that train wreck under this Leader of the Opposition. As people start to look at the implications of the bill that was rushed through by the Leader of the Opposition and the Greens in this chamber and the Senate this week, people will realise how dangerous that piece of legislation was. At the moment, the government has the ability under the Migration Act to stop somebody accused of sexual assault, for example, hopping onto a plane in Dubai, Wellington or Washington, or wherever it might be, to come to our country. That is a reasonable prospect in any circumstance and, I believe, in any reasonable person's mind, a power that should be vested in the government of the day. There's no doubt about that. Nobody could argue against it. But it derives from section 501 of the Migration Act, and there are 12 parts to that act. The difficulty is that, with Labor's approach, they have abandoned 11 of the 12 sections. It means somebody coming from Manus or Nauru, under the Leader of the Opposition's now law, could come to our country. I don't believe that the Australian public support that. I don't believe that the Australian public want to see kids back on boats or drowning at sea. But I can say that what has happened this week is that the Labor Party has completely undermined their own credibility. They went to the last election promising the Australian public that their policy would be no different to that of the coalition. The reality is that they have abandoned temporary protection visas. That is a central pillar of our success with Operation Sovereign Borders. They have walked away from it. There are only two remaining pillars. One is in relation to offshore processing. This week they completely abandoned it. That leaves one pillar, and that is turning back boats where it's safe to do so. Does anybody believe—in this chamber, around the country—that this Leader of the Opposition would be able to turn back boats where it's safe to do so? Of course not. The people smugglers understand that Labor's weak on border protection, and the Australian public this week have seen it on full display. (Time expired) National Security 51 14:20 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. The Financial Review reports that the government has a $423 million contract with the secretive Paladin group, a group registered to a beach shack, run by a director charged with fraud and money laundering, and charging taxpayers $20 million a month for services worth just $3 million. Can the minister guarantee that this almost half-billion-dollar contract meets the probity required for the spending of taxpayers' money? 14:21 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I'm actually quite touched, I've got to say. He doesn't get much of a chance to ask a question. He doesn't ask questions very regularly in this place—and you can see why! So let me come to it: the department— Ms Plibersek interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI Oh, scream and yell all you like. It won't make any difference. You're hopeless on border protection as well. The reality is that the federal government contracts the companies. There are federal procurement rules in relation to contracts. The department, not the ministers, deal with procurement, and if there are issues then the department—the secretary of my department—will deal with those issues. But I can tell you what this contract is about. It's about delivering security services. Why would you need services of this nature—on Manus Island or Nauru, for example? You'd need them because the Labor Party brought 50,000 people on 80 boats. Tragically, 1,200 didn't make it. As we know, they drowned at sea. But many people made it, and when Mr Rudd set up the arrangement with the PNG government to open Manus and to put women and kids and people onto Manus Island, it meant that the government in very quick fashion had to put up tents, had to have people living in dreadful conditions, had to contract very quickly—a horrible situation, and we're seeing it potentially unfold again if this Leader of the Opposition wins the election in May. That's the reality. Labor has been a disaster on border protection. They spent $16 billion—money that could have been spent on hospitals here, could have been spent on roads here, could have been spent on all sorts of government expenditure, such as listing medicines on the PBS. Don't forget, Labor ran out of money and they couldn't list drugs anymore, when they were last in government. So imagine asking a question about why we're spending money on the detention network. We're still cleaning up your mess! That's the problem. We don't clean up Labor's messes overnight. This has taken years. And we've got to a position where we have closed 19 detention centres. We've got to a position where we've got the 8,000 kids that Labor put into detention out of detention, yet we're facing the prospect this week in parliament where Labor wants to undo all of that, to bring people of questionable character to our country, to bring people to our country, which will send a message to people smugglers that they are back in business. Why would the Labor Party do that? Why would they risk billions of dollars and lives again? Why would the Labor Party do that? Because this Leader of the Opposition is weaker than Rudd and Gillard combined. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 52 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:24 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House we have joining us on the floor this afternoon His Excellency Mr Pedro Rodrigues da Silva, the Ambassador of Portugal to Australia. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE National Security 52 14:24 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne 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 the cost to regional Australia of failed border protection measures? What is at risk from different approaches to managing our borders? 14:25 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Lyne for his question. The answer to his question is all about opportunity cost. Opportunity cost: what we've lost in infrastructure when Labor was in government, because of the lost opportunities that could have happened, had we not been spending, had they not be spending and had the Commonwealth not been spending money on 19 detention centres and money on cleaning up the mess that they left in immigration, on their weak border measures. I'm asked about infrastructure. When I was in my early ministry, I visited Amberley RAAF base, in the member for Blair's electorate. I'm glad that the member for Blair has been taken out of witness protection in question time today! The group captain there said, 'If ever you get the opportunity, if you're the minister for roads, I'd like you to do something about the Amberley interchange—the Cunningham highway.' Not because it was politically expedient to do so but because it was the right thing to do, we funded, in last year's budget, $170 million for the Cunningham Highway. Had I ever received or had previous transport and infrastructure ministers ever received correspondence from the member for Blair? Probably not. I certainly didn't. But you know what? We funded it because it was the right thing to do, because the group captain said to me, 'You know what? If that road isn't funded, one day there's going to be a dreadful accident there.' We funded it. It wasn't even on the Queensland Labor priority list. Yes, he nods. Yes, he nods, but the member for Blair never raised it. We did because it was the right thing to do. Senator Stoker was there when we visited that site. The member for Maranoa was there—he joins Blair at Kingaroy. He knew that it was the right thing to do. Did the member for Blair ever once—did he ever when he served in the Rudd Gillard years, when $16 billion was being wasted, was being blown away on immigration—put up his hand and say, 'I'd like money for the Amberley interchange; I'd like money for the Cunningham Highway between Yamanto and Ebenezer Creek'? Did he ever once say that? I doubt it. I doubt that he ever went into caucus and fought hard for it. Often we hear from the member for McEwen, the good old member for McEwen, who's talking about phones and mobile coverage. Not one phone tower did your side of government, when you were in government, ever fund. But you know what? There are 687 mobile phone towers that we have funded and 671 of them that we have installed. That's because we get on with the job of making sure that we spend the right amount of money on infrastructure. You know why we do it? Because we've got tight borders because of the Prime Minister, when he was the immigration minister, and the Minister for Home Affairs now, because they have been tough on borders. They've made sure that we have tightened up our borders. That's what we do. We don't waste $16 billion on weak borders, like you did. Energy 52 14:28 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer him to requests for an emergency meeting of the National Party to discuss his decision to dump his latest signature energy policy. Why didn't the Prime Minister tell his deputy he was dumping his so-called big stick legislation before the Treasurer briefed it out? Given this government is so chaotic that one half doesn't know what the other half is doing, is this what the Prime Minister meant when he described his own government as the muppet— Mr McCormack 219646 You've got an opportunity to ask about the drought, Joel! Why don't you do that! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hunter will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister will cease yelling. The member for Hunter will begin his question again. Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer him to requests for an emergency meeting of the National Party to discuss the decision of the government to dump its latest signature energy policy. Why didn't the Prime Minister tell his deputy he was dumping his so-called big stick legislation, before the Treasurer briefed it out? Given that this government is so chaotic that one half doesn't know what the other half is doing, is this what the Prime Minister meant when he described his own government as the muppet show? The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call the Prime Minister, I don't want it thought that I'm being soft on the Deputy Prime Minister, but, having had the opportunity to hear it again without interjection, I can very clearly say the first part of that question was absolutely out of order. The Prime Minister can address himself to the final part of the question. 14:30 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Thank you, Mr Speaker. Again, another Labor member just comes up here talking absolute rubbish—it's just complete rubbish. That's the answer to your question: you're talking absolute rubbish. But I'll pick you up on one point. You used the word 'chaotic'. When I was the shadow minister for immigration, I remember the chaos that engulfed the former Labor government because of their failure on borders. Because of their absolute manifest failure, that government fell apart. Yes, they had internal division—that was true. Yes, they had the now Leader of the Opposition back then undermining leader after leader—that's all true. But the reason their government fell apart was their manifest failure on a key issue of policy, which was to protect Australia's borders. As a result, the costs kept mounting up. Up to $16 billion was ripped out of the budget, predominantly as a result of the incompetence and failure to act from the shadow Treasurer, then the worst immigration minister Australia has ever seen, who now wants to be the Treasurer of the country. That chaos cost $16 billion. This leader of the Labor Party has said for the last 5½ years, 'Oh, there's no difference between Labor and Liberal and National when it comes to border protection.' That is untrue. It's never been true. It is a falsehood he's tried to put on the Australian people for so long. As the Minister for Home Affairs has said, first, they are going to abolish temporary protection visas, the very thing Kevin Rudd did back in August 2008, which set the boats running in the first place. What that means is that Labor will provide permanent residence to people who illegally enter Australia. That's what they are going to do if they're elected. The second point: they have abolished offshore processing as we know it. They have abolished it. It will not be the tool that we have put in the kit that we have built that has been an effective part of our border protection framework. On the third point, turning back boats where it is safe to do so: the only thing that the Labor Party will turn back is the successful border protection policies that this government has put in place. The reason they will do all of those things is that, when it comes to border protection, they don't believe in it. There is no steel in this Leader of the Opposition when it comes to border protection and national security, and that's why, under this leader of the Labor Party, what we will see is the weakness that is inside him work its way out into the national security policies of this country, and that is why he is unfit to hold the office of Prime Minister. National Security 53 14:32 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General inform the House on how weakened border protections will affect our justice system? 14:33 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for her question. What has become very clear is that Labor members themselves either don't understand what their own medevac laws do or can't now bring themselves to publicly acknowledge how their own laws work. We've had several days of the member for Grayndler coming out with the 'Nothing to see here' response. He said: 'It essentially codifies what the government has been doing'—no particular changes; nothing to worry about; steady as she goes. That is nonsense. There are several very key differences, and let me raise one of those differences here. Previously, the minister retained and exercised a general discretion to not transfer someone where, on character grounds, they would expose the community to serious risk of criminal conduct. Things that he took into account in making that decision: were there reasonable grounds to believe the person had engaged in serious criminality previously; had the person been charged with a serious criminal offence; was the person on trial for a serious criminal offence; had the person been convicted and were they awaiting sentence for a serious criminal offence? That discretion is now gone—a very serious and significant change. The member for Scullin was asked a very simple question today. The question was: under Labor's laws, would the minister still have a discretion to prevent the medical transfer of someone where there was a strong case against that person and they were charged with murder? Here was the answer from the member for Scullin: 'Well, that could well be the case. These are all going to depend on the circumstances of the cases. This is actually the sort of discussion we should be having played out in parliament, isn't it?' I might address that answer in two parts. The first part is that you are simply plain wrong, and this is not hypothetical. We have been racing against time to try and assess the people that will be subject to these transfers. I mentioned one case yesterday. We also now know there is an individual currently in regional processing who has been charged with assaulting a medical official, who has a history of violence and who has allegedly been charged with murder in another country. The minister's discretion to refuse that transfer has gone, absolutely gone. I might address the second part of the answer from the member for Scullin, the previous head of the Socialist Left. The second part of the answer was this: 'This is actually the sort of discussion we should be having played out in parliament, isn't it?' Well, we might say that is a hard discussion to have in parliament when you gag the debate on the bill—a very difficult discussion to have in parliament when you gag the debate on the bill. But don't worry, Huckleberry, because we will talk about this every single day between now and the election, every single question time. You gagged the debate on bills that fundamentally change the border protection settings of this nation and have made our border protection weaker. Disability Services 54 14:36 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. In May 2017 Labor called for a royal commission into the violence, abuse and neglect of Australians with a disability. For the last two years, and again a few hours ago in the Senate, the government has said no to this royal commission. Given ongoing and recent shocking reports about the mistreatment of Australians with a disability, will the Prime Minister finally join with Labor to support a royal commission which Australians with a disability and their loved ones have been calling for the last two years? 14:36 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook My government takes abuse and neglect of people with disability very seriously, and we are engaging in substantial reform to improve the treatment of people with disability, many of whom will be eligible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. As he would know, there have been multiple inquiries looking into issues of abuse and neglect of people with disability at both the federal and state levels. The National Disability Insurance Scheme, which I am very pleased to acknowledge was initiated by the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and was supported by members of this side of the House, has been supported by us as we've been in government, as we have fully funded this initiative and we've been taking it through the implementation phase. This is the most significant social reform since Medicare and it will provide real choice and control for people with disability in the services they receive. As responsibility for special disability services shifts from the states and territories to a national system through the NDIS, the government has established new significant and comprehensive safeguards to prevent abuse and neglect of people with disability under the NDIS. The government has committed $209 million to establish the NDIS commission, which commenced operation on 1 July 2018 and continues to provide the National Disability Abuse and Neglect Hotline. These resources deliver the protection that people with disabilities deserve. The royal commission to investigate the quality of care and safety provided in residential and home based aged-care services includes how best to deliver aged-care services to people with disabilities residing in aged-care facilities, including younger people, and will complement the action the government is already taking to improve the treatment of people with disability, particularly young people living with a disability. The Leader of the Opposition may be aware of the initiatives we're putting in place to support investment in the development of accommodation for young people with a disability of the sort that, as the member for Brisbane will know, is championed by organisations like Youngcare. We're backing that in. The truth is the National Disability Insurance Scheme is in its early phases of implementation as these responsibilities are transferred. These need to be practised and put into place. We will always remain open to what more can be done to identify any egregious issues or any lack of care or support provided to people with disabilities in this country. Right now our focus is on implementing the National Disability Insurance Scheme, getting it right. It's a difficult job and it has not been a perfect implementation. It was never a perfect inauguration when it first came into being. But one thing is true: I believe it has always enjoyed bipartisan support in this chamber, and beyond the major parties to the other parties and Independents in this chamber. I would like for us to continue to operate in that vein. National Security 54 14:39 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House what the costs are of weakening Australia's border protection measures? 14:40 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Bowman for his question. I can inform the House that the cost of weakening our borders is high. It is very high because the cost to the budget of reopening Christmas Island, of transferring the detainees from Nauru and Manus to the mainland, and the administrative cost of implementing these changes, is $1.4 billion. That is not even taking into account the costs that will be incurred from new arrivals. If history is any guide, if Labor is allowed to inhabit the Treasury benches, there will be new unauthorised arrivals. The last time the Labor Party was in government, we saw 800 boats and 50,000 unauthorised boat arrivals. Eight thousand children ended up in detention and 2,000 children were in detention when we came to government. Tragically, more than a thousand people lost their lives at sea. Seventeen new detention centres were opened and there was a huge physical cost, emotional cost, and, of course, budgetary cost. The cost of Labor's failed border protection policies was $16 billion. Sixteen billion dollars could build 1,000 primary schools. That's more than 10 schools in each electorate of those opposite. In Hotham, Herbert, Braddon, Bass and Brand, you could have more than 10 primary schools if you didn't have the cost of Labor's folly when it came to borders. Sixteen billion dollars would build 100 new hospitals. That's a new hospital in every electorate of those sitting opposite. In contrast to the Labor Party, we put in place strong border protection policies that have worked—policies that have stopped the boats; policies that have allowed us to close detention centres; policies that have allowed us to save lives; policies that have allowed us to take every single child out of detention. These are policies that have worked. These are policies that have made Australia safer. These are policies that Labor now wants to unwind. Disability Services 55 14:42 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer and acknowledge his support for the NDIS. But, at 12.15 pm today government senators voted and divided against a disability royal commission. Is that still the position of the government? 14:43 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thought I made the government's position fairly clear in my answer to the last question, and I'd add further: the NDIS Commission has strong investigative and regulatory powers and will take tough and appropriate action, including deregistration, banning orders and civil penalties. The NDIS Commission commenced operations in New South Wales and South Australia on 1 July 2018. It will commence in the ACT, Northern Territory, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria on 1 July 2019, and in Western Australia on 1 July 2020. At this point, there are the powers and the ability to address issues in this sector, as we currently understand it, but we will always remain open to ideas and suggestions about how further support can be provided. National Security 55 14:44 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the government is securing our borders and maintaining strong border security and border protection policies that have been so successful? Is the minister aware of any risk to this success? 14:44 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks As we all know, this government inherited a humanitarian catastrophe from those opposite, with 50,000 people arriving, with 8,000 children forcibly placed in detention and, most tragically of all, with 1,200 people perishing at sea. If you look at Australia's postwar policy history, it is very difficult to come across a more appalling example of failure by an Australian government. It was extraordinary. What those opposite want to do now is to destroy the successful system that this government has built to fix the mess that those opposite created. And, as I said yesterday, what those opposite want to do is apply a lower standard for people who transfer to Australia from Manus Island and Nauru than for every other person who comes to Australia with a visa, under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958. Under section 501(6)(c) of the Migration Act—this is an important point—a visa can be refused: (c) having regard to either or both of the following: (i) the person's past and present criminal conduct; (ii) the person's past and present general conduct; the person is not of good character … That's very broad. That applies to anyone coming here on a tourist visa or someone who is coming here on a work visa. It applies to your cousin from Canada who is coming to visit. If they do not meet that standard, they do not get a visa and they do not get to come to Australia. But that standard would not apply to those coming from Manus and Nauru, and that is because of Labor's amendment 14 to the legislation. Under this legislation, which imposes a very, very narrow test on who can be excluded, there are so many examples of people for whom the minister could not stop their entry, such as a person who has multiple charges against them—sexual offences, for instance—or a person alleged to be a drug dealer. There is a whole other category that I think is really worth pausing and thinking about. It would be interesting to see the opposition's input on this point. What if we don't know someone's identity? It turns out that this is a significant issue in offshore processing. These people would not be excluded under Labor's definition because they very clearly have not breached the clauses under Labor's amendment 14. The government would be required to bring those people to Australia, despite not knowing their identity. That is shameful. Disability Services 56 14:47 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. A message is being sent from the Senate to this House, calling for a disability royal commission. Is it still the government's position to oppose and vote against a disability royal commission? 14:48 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook As the Leader of the Opposition would know, it is a decision of the executive government to commission a royal commission. If the government seeks to do that, then the government will do that. Domestic and Family Violence 56 14:48 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations and the Minister for Women. Will the minister please update the House on how the government is acting to keep vulnerable women and children safe, including through our humanitarian programs? 14:48 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for Ryan for her question and for her strong interest in this very important matter. As the Prime Minister has said, it is our duty as a government to keep Australians safe. We take that duty incredibly seriously. Since 2015, the government has invested more than $420 million in initiatives to help keep women and children safe, including initiatives announced only this week that will help women with emergency accommodation when they are fleeing domestic and family violence and also help to keep those women who want to remain in their homes safe in their homes. The government, of course, takes the financial security of women very seriously as well, helping women to build their financial security through the Women's Economic Security Statement. Over $100 million of initiatives were announced last year, for the first time ever, to help build women's financial resilience, capability and security. It's very timely that the member for Ryan asks about humanitarian programs, as only this morning I had the great privilege, along with the Prime Minister, of attending the UN Women's International Women's Day Breakfast. We can be very proud, as a country, of the fact that we are one of very few countries in the world that specifically support the resettlement of women at risk of victimisation, harassment or serious abuse because of their gender through our Women at Risk program. But we can only do that if we control our borders. Controlling our borders means that we can offer security and safety to women, like the 23-year-old Afghan woman who was sold by her father at the age of six years to a member of the Taliban. She was raped each and every day for a number of years. She bore four children. She was finally able to escape her circumstances in Pakistan and resettle here in Australia, thanks to our Women at Risk program. Sadly, her story is not unusual, but the government is helping women just like her. In fact, since 2013, more than 7,000 women and children have found safe refuge in our country because of our Women at Risk program. In the last financial year alone, 2,100 women and children have been able to find safe refuge here, which is more than at any other time in our history. Those opposite talk a lot about compassion, and they're very conspicuous in their talk about compassion, but real compassion is delivering safety and security, which is what we are doing, and those opposite risk it. Disability Services 56 14:51 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister: I refer to his previous answer. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the executive will implement a resolution of the parliament, such as the one which has already been carried in the Senate and will be voted on in the House? 14:52 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Again, Mr Speaker, if the government intends to initiate a royal commission into any matter, as we have indeed done in relation to the aged-care sector, which includes the in-home care and disability services support provided in residential aged care to young Australians, then we will initiate that process, and we will take— An honourable member interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L The question is, 'When?' We've already announced the royal commission into aged care. It's already happened. I was talking about the royal commission into aged care. That's what I was referring to. We've actually done it. We initiated that. I took that decision when I became Prime Minister and I initiated it. I don't recall the previous government doing that. In all their calls for royal commissions, I never heard them call for a royal commission into aged care. I didn't hear them do that. We chose to do that. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister— Mr MORRISON E3L I was just responding to his interjection, Mr Speaker. If they don't want to interject, fair enough. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Shorten 00ATG On direct relevance: my question was about a disability royal commission. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister is in order. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L I was making the point that, where the government seeks to put in place a royal commission, we will do that. We will draft the terms of reference, we will consult on it and we will issue it. It is a matter for the executive government to determine whether royal commissions are initiated. Those decisions are not made by the parliament. The parliament can pass resolutions. The parliament can pass many resolutions. But, under our Constitution and the way the government works, the government is the one that initiates royal commissions. We've been more than ready to call royal commissions in the past. We would be in the future. An honourable member interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L And our focus at the moment is ensuring that we are establishing the national disability insurance commission. But I take the interjection from the member: 'You'd better hurry.' How arrogant has the Labor Party become about the next election? So sure are they of winning the next election, that they call out in this way, saying, 'Well, you'd better do it, because you'll be all done.' So arrogant have they become— Mr Albanese interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L No, you said it, Albo. The SPEAKER 00APG I remind the Prime Minister to refer to members by their correct titles. The member for Grayndler on a point of order. Mr Albanese R36 Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister knows full well that I was referring to the fact that the resolution from the Senate will be back here soon, and— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Grayndler can resume his seat. The Prime Minister can resume his seat, too. I'm just going to make an obvious point: if people are worried about their interjections being misinterpreted, that is quite ironical. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Fair point? Good. I'm quoting you. Mr MORRISON E3L As I was saying, so arrogant have the Labor Party become that they think they can do whatever they like—and we're seeing it, already, in opposition—trashing our border protection laws, even before they have an opportunity to face an election. The Australian people have seen this mob. They've seen them for what they are. And, yes, there will be an election; there will be a decision; and I don't believe they will elect an arrogant Labor Party. Economy 57 14:55 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister inform the House of how the government is able to create jobs and opportunity for investment in industry, science and technology? How would this investment be put at risk by different approaches to budget management, including recklessly unravelling Australia's border protection regime? 14:56 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for Tangney for his question. I know how passionate he is about making sure that Australia has a strong economy. By having a strong economy, we can actually grow the jobs that we have already, and build on our economy into the future. We are absolutely committed, on this side of the House, to growing jobs in industry, science and technology. We understand that, in order to do that, we must have a strong economy. We know that, without a strong economy, families and businesses will suffer, and, when they suffer, that has a direct impact on jobs. We are committed, on this side of the House, to manufacturing, and there are some interesting statistics that I'd like to share at this point. When Labor was last in government, one in eight manufacturing jobs disappeared. In the last 12 months alone, the Liberal-National government has created more than 74,000 new manufacturing jobs. We were able to do that for a number of reasons, including that we have worked hard and we have built a strong economy. Through doing that, we have been able to inspire confidence in small businesses and medium enterprises to invest in their businesses and to invest, of course, in their workforce and to grow those jobs. We do know that, under Labor, there was a multibillion-dollar blow-out when they had a weak border protection policy. What could those billions of dollars have been spent on? Clearly, they would've made a significant impact in industry, science and technology. But let me just concentrate on science to begin with. We have injected $1.5 billion into our science capability. We have put more money into science than Labor did when they were in government. We have invested, including $97 million more into the CSIRO, $126 million more for ANSTO and $53 million more for the Australian Institute of Marine Science. If billions of dollars have to go back into making sure that our borders are strong, it will have a significant and potentially devastating impact on our scientific research. I don't want to see that happen, and I am absolutely committed to making sure that we continue to grow our science, our technology and our manufacturing industries in this country, to make sure that we have the jobs for the future. One thing is absolutely clear, and that is that the Liberal-National government stops the boats. Labor stops the jobs. Disability Services 58 14:59 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister support a royal commission into the violence against and abuse and neglect of Australians living with a disability—yes or no? 14:59 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I said when I first responded to this question that I had hoped there would be an approach to these issues in supporting people with disabilities that wouldn't get into this sort of partisan debate. I know what the Leader of the Opposition is doing: he's seeking to create a point of tension and division in this parliament about the support and care provided to people with disabilities. I will remain open to every single option there is to provide support to people with disabilities, and that begins with ensuring that we're implementing correctly and appropriately the National Disability Insurance Scheme and ensuring that the commission that sits around that has the ability to receive complaints and take action on those complaints and is working effectively across the nation so that people with disability and their families and carers can get access to the sorts of remedies and solutions that are required. I have already demonstrated my willingness to call a royal commission when it comes to the aged-care sector to address the very palpable abuses and neglect and the very serious cases that we have seen in that sector—most seriously the Oakden scandal that occurred in South Australia in a government-run aged-care facility under the Labor Party. A Labor government presided over the Oakden scandal and the manifest failures more broadly in the aged-care system that I would like to see addressed through this aged-care royal commission. I do not wish to draw this note of partisanship into this debate. I am open to every option to ensure support for disabled Australians all around the country, as every budget I delivered as Treasurer demonstrated and as I will continue to demonstrate in my role as Prime Minister, with the Treasurer. So we are open to every option, but one thing we are not open to is playing politics with disabilities. Defence Personnel 58 15:01 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore My question is to the Minister for Defence Personnel. Will the minister update the House on the measures taken by the government to reduce the exposure of our ADF personnel to trauma associated with border protection operations? What assistance are we providing to those who have been exposed to trauma as a result of their deployment on border protection operations? 15:01 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I thank the member for Moore for his question, and I thank him for the work he does to support veterans in his own electorate and throughout Western Australia. It is often said that there is no greater service to our nation than to put on the uniform of our Navy, our Army or our Air Force and to be willing to place yourself in harm's way to help those who can't necessarily help themselves. Historically, harm's way has normally meant conflicts abroad, whether it be wartime or in peacekeeping missions. In recent years, obviously, it's included Afghanistan and Iraq. But, as we all know, our ADF personnel can also be placed in harm's way much closer to home. On Operation Resolute, our ADF personnel have been deployed to protect our borders. They can be exposed to dangers when forming boarding parties to deal with unauthorised arrivals, often on boats which have been sabotaged and designed to sink and often working in hazardous sea conditions. They are also deployed on search and rescue missions, hoping to save people in peril of drowning at sea but all too often recovering bodies from the sea. It is traumatic, it is horrendous and there are quite sickening scenes, and it does have an impact. Our Department of Veterans' Affairs is already helping people with PTSD and other claims directly linked to their service on border protection activities. The government provides over $200 million annually to support those who have mental health issues. I've got to say there is a hidden cost to the people smugglers' insidious trade. It is our ADF personnel and their families, the people that we put in harm's way, who carry that burden for the rest of their lives if we let the people smugglers get back into business. I want to quote from Senator Reynolds from the other place last night from her direct experience. She said: Let me say to everybody here: it won't be the senators in this place who have to recover the bloated corpses of babies and women mauled by the sharks; it will be the men and women of the Australian Border Force and the Australian Defence Force, who have had to do it twice before … It won't be members of the House of Representatives who will be comforting our Defence and Border Force personnel who years later still wake with night terrors, reliving the horrors we knowingly inflicted on them. Senator Reynolds speaks from her direct military experience. I know those opposite last time they were in government, when they changed our border protection laws, were full of good intentions. I don't suggest for a second there was any malice intended, but it sent the wrong message and the outcome was horrific: 50,000 people arriving on 800 boats, with 1,200 people tragically dying at sea. I do urge those opposite to reconsider their position, to reconsider the direction they are taking right now. I fear they've started down a path which ends in more trauma and more lives lost. I don't want to see Australian Defence Force personnel placed in harm's way unnecessarily. I'd like to take the opportunity to advise both our current and former serving men and women of the services available. The Open Arms counselling service is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, on 1800011046. Minister for Human Services and Digital Transformation 59 15:05 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton My question is to the Minister for Human Services, and refers to previous answers he has given in his current portfolio concerning the raids on the AWU when TV cameras turned up before the police. How can the minister possibly stand by the answers he has given in this House when, according to sworn evidence, it was his office that ensured that TV cameras turned up to the raids before the police? 15:06 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling During my time as justice minister, I had a whole series of breathless shadow ministers coming to the dispatch box every time there was an investigation that had political implications, asking me what I knew and who said what when. My answers have always been the same. My office and I dealt with difficult information, dealt with sensitive information, every single day. We knew our responsibilities in relation to dealing with that information, and we upheld those responsibilities in all circumstances. I was pleased to update the House yesterday on what this issue is actually about. There is one person in this chamber who has not answered any questions about whether their behaviour was lawful in relation to the conduct of the union that they ran at the time. If the police were investigating me, and I had nothing to hide, I would do everything I could to get them the information and the evidence that they required to exonerate me from whatever allegation had been made. If you were innocent, that is exactly what you would do. If, for 18 months, you refused to provide that evidence, and you did everything possible to stop the police from getting that evidence, how would you describe a person who behaved in that way? I would describe them as guilty: guilty of hiding information from the police, and guilty of not doing the right thing when they were in charge of the union. Let's say the CEO of a private company gave company money to a political organisation that they were involved in, and then, later on, they gave themselves some company money. What would the opposition say about that CEO? They would say, 'Lock him up.' That's what they would say. But, when it comes to the CEO of a union, they apply completely different standards of behaviour. To the Leader of the Opposition: don't get one of your lesser minions to ask questions about this. If you've got something to ask me, get up and ask it yourself, and, while you're at it, explain why you don't want this evidence going to the Australian Federal Police. Regional Australia 59 15:08 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to my question yesterday and acknowledge the release of the government's response to the Regions at the ready report. The response, sadly, confirms that regional policy is uncoordinated, without planning or strategy. Traditionally people in regional Australia have supported the government, but, as outlined in the Rusted Off book, that is clearly changing as we are continually treated as second-class citizens. That's confirmed by this response. Prime Minister, as you prepare for the budget, will you personally commit to read this government response and undertake to give regional Australia the policies and resources we deserve to take our place with this great nation? 15:09 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Yesterday the member asked me whether we had committed to a white paper on regional Australia. As you'd know, in that response, we have committed to doing exactly that. That is exactly what the member had been advocating to this government, that we should do that, and that is exactly what the government is going to be doing. The other thing I'd say to the member is this: the one thing that will continue to fund services to the record levels that we are as a government, not just in metropolitan Australia but in rural and regional Australia, is the economic plan that we continue to operate. In this country, as a result of the economic plan of this government, we have seen record growth in employment. We have seen businesses started, established all over the country. We have lowered taxes. We have provided a $5.6 billion investment into drought-proofing and providing support to Australians in rural and regional areas that are afflicted by the drought, with, I'd argue, one of the most comprehensive responses to drought that this nation has seen. I commend Minister Littleproud and I commend Major General Day for the work that he's been doing, working with rural and regional communities all around the country. Mr Shorten 00ATG And the envoy. Mr MORRISON E3L You're right: I commend the member for New England as well and his responsibilities as the special envoy, out there working with rural and regional communities all around the country. Whether it's the Inland Rail, whether it's our investment in regional universities, whether it is our investment in mobile towers, as the Deputy Prime Minister has reminded us, our government will continue to invest in the infrastructure, the services and the support that rural and regional Australians depend on. And they are represented by the countless number of rural and regional members that sit on the coalition benches, who are the most—the most—voracious advocates for the people of rural and regional Australia. There is not a day that goes by in my responsibility as Prime Minister that my rural and regional members are not raising these issues and championing the cause of rural and regional Australia. That is why, under our government, rural and regional Australia is getting the level of service and support that it has only seen under this government at those record levels. And it will continue to receive it. I want to thank the members for their wonderful advocacy as rural and regional members to ensure that it will always have a voice in government here in Australia. Asylum Seekers 60 15:11 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar My question is to the Attorney-General: Will the Attorney-General update the House on how the government is supporting a strong justice system through strong and consistent border protection policies? How would other approaches impact Australia's ability to scrutinise transferees from Nauru for criminal justice and national security purposes? 15:12 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for his question. Yesterday we noted reporting of a person on Manus Island who is charged with four counts of sexual penetration of a minor against the PNG Summary Offences Act and the crimes against children act. Today we've informed the House of an individual currently in regional processing who has been charged with assaulting a medical officer, who has a history of violence and who is also alleged to have been charged with murder in another country. We have informed the House that the Labor changes, the Labor laws, now mean that the minister has no discretion to refuse the transfer of individuals such as those two that we've mentioned. But perhaps an even more fundamental problem relates to the types of assessments that actually allow our agencies to unearth information of that kind. Whether it is trying to find whether someone has behaved in a previously unlawful way or whether or not they may be a security risk, that is a resource-intensive process that takes an enormous amount of time. Another very fundamental difference that has now emerged because of the Labor laws rammed through this parliament on Tuesday night is that previously the minister and the Department of Home Affairs controlled the timing of medical transfers. Home Affairs now faces the task of assessing up to 1,000 cases of people in a time frame that is effectively determined by a very small group of doctors. We reasonably believe that we will be forced with a flood of about 300 immediate Labor transfer cases. Now, assessing someone, as the minister for immigration has noted, of uncertain origin, as to whether or not they have engaged in criminality or whether or not they pose a security risk to the Australian people, is a difficult, resource-intensive process that takes time. A case in the High Court yesterday demonstrated this very clearly—the case of M47. It was about an individual who arrived in Australia in 2010. They have been an unlawful noncitizen since then. They variously claimed to be a citizen of West Sahara, Algeria, Spanish Canary Islands and to be stateless. That person used various false passports indicating citizenship of Gaza, Israel, Iraq. Nine years later, we still do not know the country of origin of that person. We still don't know that after nine years worth of investigation. This House needs to understand, as do the Australian people, how long it is that Labor's laws now give ASIO to assess those 300, those 1,000 cases, as to whether they might present a security risk to the Australian people. And how long is that time frame? It is 72 hours. We are staring down the potential to have up to 300 requirements to assess 300 individuals for their potential security risk, at once, in a 72-hour period—because of your changes to the law. Minister for Human Services and Digital Transformation 61 15:15 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton My question is to the Minister for Human Services and refers to previous answers he has given in his current portfolio concerning the raids on the AWU, when TV cameras turned up before the police. Can the minister confirm that no person who at the relevant time worked in his office leaked those raids to the media? The SPEAKER 00APG I am just pondering whether that question's in order. I don't believe it is, actually. I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, to the point of order: the question refers to previous answers. In those previous answers, the minister has referred to the raids, has referred to the issue of media being alerted and has referred to the work of his own office. They are the elements of the question. The SPEAKER 00APG That's a fair point. I'm going to allow it. I will hear from the Leader of the House. If he's got something ultra-compelling— Mr Pyne 9V5 I think it is compelling, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 00APG There is never any doubt about that! Mr Pyne 9V5 The minister could, for example, be asked a question about whether he has made inquiries of his staff about whether they have done a particular action— The SPEAKER 00APG I don't think so. Mr Pyne 9V5 But that's not what the question is. He can't actually answer what has been done by somebody else. It is not within his knowledge. The SPEAKER 00APG Let me hear the question again. Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 From the beginning, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER 00APG Don't do it backwards! That's the best place to start! Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 I'm happy to do it forwards! But I'm happy to do the last question, which is the crux of the issue. The SPEAKER 00APG I think I'll hear the whole lot, if that's okay. Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Thanks, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Human Services and refers to previous answers he has given in his current portfolio concerning the raids on the AWU, when TV cameras turned up before the police. Can the minister confirm that no person who at the relevant time worked in his office leaked those raids to the media? The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the member for Gorton. I am going to allow the question. I do take the point that the Leader of the House has made, but the point is that the minister can address it in any way he wants. And I think that the link to previous answers means that it is in order. So I am going to allow it after all. Minister. 15:18 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very pleased to answer the question, because I've got a lot more to say about this. This goes to the character of the Leader of the Opposition. This goes to the character of the man who wants to be Prime Minister of this country. This goes to the character of the man who already is measuring up the curtains of the office, thinking about how he is going to redecorate The Lodge and how he operates if he were to get into that position of responsibility. His last position of responsibility, the job he had prior to entering the parliament, was running the Australian Workers Union, the AWU, the union which since October 2017 has been running interference and trying to stop the Australian Federal Police from getting the evidence they require to pursue their investigation about wrongdoing within the union. And it goes directly to his behaviour when he was running that union. Can you just take union members' money and give it to whomever you like, including yourself? That's what he did with union members' money. The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW I respect that there is wide range allowed when there is a large preamble, but this question is quite tight in the specifics of what it asks and what it refers to. The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right. I am going to point out to the Manager of Opposition Business—that's why I was pondering the question—that this is the problem in referring to previous answers, and that's exactly what the minister is doing. The minister has the call. Mr KEENAN E0J As I said, I'm very happy to continue to take a lot of questions on this. I understand question time has been extended, and I'm very happy to continue discussing what I know about this matter, which is quite a lot, actually! And I know a lot about political investigations in this place, and, when I was justice minister, I was responsible for overseeing many of them. We always knew how to deal with information in relation to those particularly sensitive cases. And what could be more sensitive than wrongdoing by the man who wants to be the Prime Minister of Australia? What could be more sensitive than that? When he was running the AWU—and this is what the police were investigating—there are allegations that union members' money was used in a cavalier fashion—given out to GetUp!, given out to his own campaign fund—and he has never once taken the opportunity to actually say why he won't allow that evidence to be examined by the police. Those are not the actions of somebody that doesn't have anything to hide. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! The Minister for Agriculture! Mr KEENAN E0J We know how this man would operate as Prime Minister of Australia, because he's told us. He will run the country like he ran the union—and if that's the case, we know how much more we've got to fear from a Labor government. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 62 15:21 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Minister for Health: will the minister update the House how a strong economy enables the government to subsidise life-changing medicines for Australian patients living with lung cancer? Is the minister aware of any different approaches that resulted in patients being delayed access to medicines recommended by the experts? 15:21 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Goldstein, who has been a great advocate for GriefLine in his electorate and a great advocate for the listing of new medicines, and has also been a great advocate for action which will help deliver a strong economy. He knows his economic history, and I think he would know the history of the PBS and some of the things that have happened in recent years. But, interestingly, yesterday I realised that there are some who don't know that history. I read a transcript from the member for Ballarat who was asked a question at the Press Club about whether or not Labor would list medicines recommended by the PBAC if they were ever in government again. She said, 'Look, it has been, frankly, terrific to see that the government'—our government, that is—'has been listing medicines'. And then she went on to say 'in the same way that Labor did in government', and then went on to guarantee that they would list the medicines 'as we did in government'. That was a bit of a surprise to me. I had to dig out the 2011 budget statement, and it was a statement authorised by the Assistant Treasurer, amongst others, and the then Assistant Treasurer is now the Leader of the Opposition. That statement said that, due to fiscal circumstances: … the listing of some medicines would be deferred until fiscal circumstances permit. As the Consumers Health Forum and 59 other organisations said at the time: Affordable medicines and vaccines that save and prolong lives are being denied to some of the most vulnerable chronically ill Australians by a short-sighted decision by the Government to disregard the recommendations of PBAC. That is what they did when they were in government. Fortunately, fiscal circumstances are strong under this government and they will always be strong. That's why when the PBAC recommended the listing of Tagrisso, in mid-December, we were able to announce a month later that that medicine would be listed as of 1 February. Tagrisso is a wonderful medicine. It is a new medicine which treats lung cancer for those with a genetic condition that causes it; people who have never smoked, in the overwhelming majority of cases. And what that means—as the Prime Minister and the member for Deakin and I were able to say on the day when we met with Bruno, who has been through the clinical trials on this, and who has his life back and is able to be a dad because of this medicine—is that 400 other patients, in a $69 million listing, will save up to $90,000 per year through this new medicine that is on the PBAC. That means they have a shot at life. That means they have a shot at being their full selves. Under us, if the PBAC lists it, we will always list a new medicine, and we will do that because we have a strong economy. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 62 15:24 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat My question is to the Prime Minister. According to this list provided by the Department of Health this week, there are at least 52 medicines that have been recommended by the independent experts for listing on the PBS but not listed by this government. This includes drugs for cancer, Parkinson's disease and a range of other life-threatening conditions. How can this government boast about the PBS while it's delaying access to life-saving drugs? 15:25 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders Nothing could give me more pleasure than to answer this question. Of all the things that this government has done in its time which represent the delivery of a strong economy and the translation of that into essential services it has been the listing of new medicines—new medicines for cystic fibrosis, new medicines for spinal muscular atrophy, new medicines for lung cancer, new medicines for skin cancer and new medicines for so many other different conditions. I want to compare that with some of the things that the previous government did. They denied the listing and they deferred the listing for Symbicort, for the treatment of severe asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; for Fragmin, to prevent the formation of blood clots and to treat deep vein thrombosis; and for endometriosis and in vitro fertilisation medicines. They said at the time: Given the current fiscal environment, the listing of some medicines would be deferred until fiscal circumstances permit. That was when the Leader of the Opposition was the Assistant Treasurer. Not once has he ever explained why they made that decision. Not once has he ever stood and talked to the public about why he believed it was fair and reasonable to make those deferrals. Let me deal with some of the things that the member for Ballarat has asserted. I have done a bit of analysis and a little bit of an assessment and we have looked at the sorts of things that they have talked about. When they stopped listing medicines, there was an average of 14.1 months of delay. In the cases they deferred on previous things that we have assessed, the highest average was eight months. We have been able to bring the listing forward to under three months for Kisqali, for Spinraza, for Kalydeco, for Orkambi and to one month for Tagrisso. There was an interesting example that the member cited. The last time she talked about a specific drug was when she referred to a PBAC recommendation with regard to a vaccine. I had a look at that, and do you know what? It turned out that it was a proposal for the pneumococcal vaccine. What she didn't understand—and I can only think that it was misunderstanding, not wilful misleading—was that it had to go back to the regulators after a two-year assessment process. When the pneumococcal vaccine is finally approved by the PBAC we will list it but it hasn't been approved. When it is finally approved, we will list it, as we do with everything—as opposed to those on the other side, who made shameful decisions to defer the listing of new medicines. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the member for Ballarat seeking to table a document? Ms Catherine King 00AMR I am seeking to table the list of 52 medicines that this government has failed to list, including some that have not been listed for well over— The SPEAKER 00APG No; the member for Ballarat needs to seek leave. Is leave granted? Leave is not granted. Defence Industry 63 15:28 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister update the House on how a strong economy allows the government to invest in Australia's defence industry and how this keeps Australians safe and secure? 15:29 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff On Monday of this week, I had the pleasure of joining with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence as we commissioned the construction of 12 new submarines for our nation—an investment in new capability for our country; an investment in thousands of Australian jobs—using Australian steel and being built in this country. That's what you can do when you have the budget under control. You can invest in making sure our nation's borders are strong and our nation is secure. I'll go to the member for Robertson's question. I know she's passionate about border protection and the security of our nation, like all of us on this side. All of us are invested in making the hard decisions to restore the budget and make sure we can keep our nation secure. It stands in very stark contrast to the Australian Labor Party. Not only was 1989 the last year that the Australian Labor Party ran a budget surplus but, incidentally, 1989 was the last time the Australian Labor Party commissioned a new build of a vessel when it came to our defence industry. In fact, last time Labor were in power, for the six years that they were in control of this nation's security, they did not commission a single vessel. They ran budget deficits and were not able to invest in Aussie jobs or make sure that our nation was secure. It was because their priorities were all at sea. Their priorities were all at sea because we saw a complete blowout in the protection of our borders. We saw more than 50,000 illegal arrivals to our country. We saw, sadly, more than 1,200 fatalities. We saw more than 10,200 people in detention, of which 2,000 were children. They spent billions upon billions of dollars trying to clean up the mess that they caused when they tinkered with our nation's laws. At the very time that the Liberal and National government is investing an extra $200 billion—making our country secure, boosting our Defence Force, providing maximum protection for our men and women in uniform and investing in Australia's defence industry—the Labor Party has once again put all of that in jeopardy by adopting a posture on border protection that weakens our nation's border and, importantly, threatens the budget position of our nation, which completely erodes any ability to ensure, if they were elected, they could continue to invest in our Defence Force. The simple facts are that it takes a Liberal and National government to protect our borders. It takes a Liberal and National government to restore our budget. It takes a Liberal and National government to invest $200 billion in defence and create thousands of jobs. (Time expired) Question Time 64 15:32 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he has decided that today's question time will continue longer than any other day in the 45th Parliament in order to prevent the House from voting on a royal commission into abuse to people living with disabilities? Ms Ryan interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lalor is warned. 15:32 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook What a declaration of surrender from the leader of the Labor Party. When has a Leader of the Opposition ever wanted to shut down question time when the government are happy to stand here and be questioned on their record, their achievements and the plans they have for Australia? We're happy to answer questions on this all day because we're proud of what we're doing as a government and we know what we're achieving for the country. We have the plans for Australia—whether it's for a stronger economy or for keeping Australia safe and secure. Earlier in the week we did have to cut question time short because of the important matters that we were dealing with on indulgence. Why would the leader of the Labor Party not want to take the opportunity of holding the government to account? I can tell you why—because he has had a shocking week in this chamber. He knows his rollover on border protection shows the nation the weakness that beats within his heart. He does not want to come into this chamber and debate these issues with the government. Not once since their apparent great victory the other night have we had a question about how these new laws will operate. Not once have we heard from them: 'How much will these new laws'—which weaken border protection and which the Labor Party have championed—'cost? What will it mean for national security? What has the National Security Committee decided?' We've been answering those questions in this place. The other day they chopped off debate because they didn't want to hear the answers—answers that said that ministerial decisions to say no to a transfer are automatically overturned by a panel, even if the panel has not yet been formed. We had the ludicrous situation the other day as the Leader of the Opposition sought to absolve himself of responsibility with absurd amendments to a bill which now says this panel of doctors has to be a panel of volunteer doctors. What's next? The National Security Committee is going to be made up of a panel of voluntary dentists or any other medical professional because the Labor Party aren't prepared to take national security seriously in this place? I began this week at the National Press Club, setting out our plans to keep Australians safe and secure. If the Labor Party don't have any questions about it, that just shows how hollow, vacuous and weak they are when it comes to national security. National Security 64 15:35 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on steps the government is taking to ensure that our borders are secure, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to border protection which could put Australians at risk? 15:36 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks We know those opposite destroyed our border security with tragic humanitarian consequences. We know that we fixed it. We're the ones that fixed it. We got the 2,000 kids out of detention. We stopped the boats. We saved Australian taxpayers billions of dollars, and now they want to come along and trash it again. On Tuesday they rushed through this parliament laws which will unravel offshore processing which is so critical to our border security. Under this process, as the Prime Minister said, any two doctors anywhere in Australia who have never been to Manus Island or Nauru can start a process to bring people to Australia. Two doctors from Dapto can effectively overrule doctors who are actually on Manus Island and Nauru. If the minister doesn't agree with that it goes to a medical panel, and that panel can overrule the minister on any grounds, save the very narrow grounds under Labor's amendment (14). What that means is, in short order, a very large number of people will be transferred to Australia from Manus Island and Nauru. That necessitates the reopening of Christmas island at a cost to taxpayers that we estimate at greater than $1 billion. That is what the Labor Party have done. They say they put in safeguards about the people who are transferred, and that's why I draw your attention again to amendment (14) that defines the people who can come to Australia under Labor's amendment. It's very narrow. There's no character test outside of the very narrow criminal test of 12 months conviction or more, so a backpacker from Norway has to pass the substantive character test under Australian law, but people coming from Manus Island or Nauru don't. How can that be fair or appropriate? Why should someone who's coming to be a skilled worker in the goldfields of Western Australia have to pass a much higher character test than someone who's coming from Manus or Nauru? Also, why on earth should someone who's coming from Manus or Nauru not have to at least assist the government in verifying their identity? If someone is not willing to assist the government in verifying their identity, that raises very serious character concerns. They can be dealt with under the Migration Act generally, but they cannot be dealt with under Labor's amendment (14). It is a disgraceful amendment. It puts Australia's border security at great risk. Question Time 65 15:39 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his answer to my previous question. Is the reason that the Prime Minister has extended question time that he knows that he's lost control of the House of Representatives and he's fearful that a majority of members will support a royal commission into the disability sector to keep Australians with disability safe? 15:39 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook No, that is not the case. I'm not prepared to engage in creating partisanship around that issue. I'm not. The member raises the issue of question time today. It is true that there was a question time back in 2009—I remember it— An in terjection having been made from the gallery — The SPEAKER 00APG Senator Steele-John, you will not interject in this chamber. The Prime Minister will continue. Mr MORRISON E3L The opportunity is there before the Labor Party to raise questions before the government on matters of government policy and the government's achievements and plans. The Leader of the Opposition is basically surrendering, saying he's got nothing to say. He's got no alternative views. He's a hollow man. When he has been given the opportunity to stump up in this place and ask questions, he wants to run away. He doesn't want a question time. I remember some pretty long question times when Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister. They used to go on for hours, and probably it was only one question that he answered during that time. Thankfully there are now time limits as a result of when the Labor Party used to go on for minutes and times immemorial, but here there is an opportunity for the opposition, if they're serious. The government members are quite happy to raise these matters because there is much that we have done. Particularly, what is coming under scrutiny today is the weakness of the Labor Party all week— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW No, not a point of order, Mr Speaker; a procedural motion. In accordance with standing order 66— The SPEAKER 00APG No, the Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. He will not do that midway through an answer. Mr Burke DYW A point of order. The SPEAKER 00APG No, you've now flagged what you're trying to do. You're not going to interrupt someone answering a question; otherwise it will never end, and you'll have procedural motions on your questions. The Prime Minister will continue. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. I remind the House that it was the Labor Party today that did not want to have a matter of public importance debate. That is normally the practice of this House at this time. Not only do they not want to have question time; they do not even want to debate a matter of public importance of their own nomination. How bankrupt have the opposition become, both on policy and on any other terms, when they cannot identify an issue they want to debate in the House and don't even want to ask questions of the government? If the Labor Party can't manage opposition, how on earth would they manage government if they were given the chance? MOTIONS 66 MOTIONS Business of the Day 66 15:42 Mr BURKE DYW Watson In accordance with standing order 66(g), I move: That the business of the day be called on. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, on a point of order: standing order 66(g), which is 'That the business of the day be called on', refers specifically to the only other standing order in the standing orders where that phrase is used, which is standing order 46(e), 'That the business of the day be called on' because it relates specifically to being able to call on business during the matter of public importance and not at any other time of the day. The SPEAKER 00APG I'm going to address this issue. You can have a tete-a-tete on the subject behind the chair if you want to. Let me be very clear about this. When it comes to question time and other matters during the day, my responsibility is to call it on; that's why there is a procedure. I'm going to address this in some detail— Mr Burke interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, you can calmly listen. That's a good thing to do. I'm just going to flag exactly my point. That's why I say, 'In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has expired.' There's no hard finish for question time. The Leader of the House's point is right—that is, when there's a matter of public importance before the House, the Leader of the House can move the motion that was put there. Page 545 of House of Representatives Practice makes it very clear that the end of question time is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. That's always been the case. Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Hang on. No, I'm addressing the House. Page 545 of Practice makes it very clear that ending question time is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. There is no set end time and indeed, as I think the Prime Minister might have indicated, they have gone for various lengths of time. They have over the years, and that's been the case, even though there's a normal period where questions start and end. But they have gone longer. In fact, on 4 February 2009, question time went for 126 minutes. It's in footnote 22 on that page. No-one can call question time to an end other than the Prime Minister or the duty minister. My responsibility as Speaker is to this House. I did that on some complex matters the other day, and I'm not going to have devices to try and end something like question time when the Practice and the convention are very clear indeed. Mr BURKE DYW Thank you for the explanation you've given, Mr Speaker. The issue that I sought to raise and that I seek to simply put before you is that this is a procedural motion that is put in two parts of standing orders. It is put once, as the Leader of the House referred to, with respect to the MPI. It is also put as a procedural motion under standing order 66. Where it appears under standing order 66, that standing order explains that 'a member may only interrupt another member' to do the following. It does not have further limitations on the MPI under that standing order. What I'm seeking to raise as a point of order is that standing orders provide for this to be moved in two different circumstances. I am not raising as a point of order that the Prime Minister doesn't have the right to delay as long as he wants in saying that further questions should be placed on the Notice Paper. What I am putting to you is that the House has the right, just as these other motions can be moved during question time. For example, (e), 'That the member be no longer heard,' is from time to time moved during question time, as is (g), 'That the business of the day be called on.' There are no words under standing order 66 that prevent the House from making that decision if it is so moved, and that's why I wish to move it. The SPEAKER 00APG I'm going to hear from the Leader of the House. I'm unmoved on the subject. I'll hear from the Leader of the House, and then I'll address it again. Before I hear from the Leader of the House, I'm reminding members that my role and my responsibility is to allow members to participate in these debates, and question time is not just one of them but an important one. The conventions in this place matter. Before I even hear from the Leader of the House, I'm going to say it is very clear when the business of the day can be called on. It is very clear when it is called on, and I'm going to be as generous as I can. Saying that is a standalone power when it relates to standing order 46 is wrong. It's either, frankly, a misunderstanding of the standing orders—and, if that were the case, you'd be able to walk to the despatch box and give me an example of when it had been done. It's never been done, and I think, frankly, it's not anything the House should even be entertaining. I'm saying that strongly. I upheld the rights of all members the other day. I tell you what: I'm going to do it again today. The Leader of the House has the call. Mr Pyne 9V5 Thank you, Mr Speaker. You've been very, very clear and I'm sure the House understands your position. Just to the point of order that the Manager of Opposition Business raised: in House of Representatives Practice, it says: … it is entirely within the discretion of the Prime Minister or the senior Minister present as to whether Question Time will take place and, if so, for how long. There is absolutely no ambiguity about the length being entirely within the discretion of the Prime Minister. As question time has begun, it can only end when he or the senior minister who is present decides that it is the end. That's very, very clear in House of Representatives Practice, page 545. The SPEAKER 00APG Can I just say something. I know what's going on here. I'm not unfamiliar with procedure or what's going on. Can I make it easy? The message you're worried about hasn't even arrived. It hasn't—I'm just telling you. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, members on my right, it hasn't arrived and, even if it had arrived, in the ordinary course of events it wouldn't be dealt with today. Let me make a point about the Senate. Sure, they send messages over and they get dealt with, but it's not here—that's the fact. So we can argue about this till 4.30 if you want to. I think a better use of time would allow question time to continue. Why don't we give some of those members that don't usually get a question a go? That's what I think should happen. Mr Burke DYW If I may, Mr Speaker, I will only raise one aspect of what you've just said, which is the concept of whether or not me moving that motion was unprecedented. We are in an unprecedented situation today, where we are waiting for a message in a situation where the government does not control the majority of the House and is using question time and its length as a way of trying to prevent the House from making a decision. There are a number of things that have happened this term that have happened for the first time in the history of this House. As to the fact that it is without precedent, there is a reason why no-one has sought to move such a motion before. The SPEAKER 00APG You're right that there are a lot of things that have happened, but I'll tell you one thing that's not going to happen: we're not going to start inventing standing orders. Another thing that hasn't happened is the absence of an MPI. I think now I've got the attention of the House and everyone's here. Ms Flint interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, Member for Boothby, there's lots of time—I think we've made that point! I'm going to address a couple of points. It is a misunderstanding of the standing orders. I'd forgotten—and I know why—question time going for 126 minutes in 2009. I had. You probably had as well. Another thing that's happened, and I might as well address this now, is the absence of a matter of public importance today. House of Reps Practice also notes that, although members on both sides of the House are entitled to propose the matter and occasionally—very occasionally—a government member's been selected, it's now essentially the convention, since we're talking of conventions, that the opposition lodge the MPI; or, indeed, if a crossbencher lodges it, they do that in consultation with the official opposition. Given there was no MPI lodged today, this has deprived the House of an opportunity and deprived other members of an opportunity to have a matter of public importance. Question time is an important part of the day; so is the matter of public importance. It is meant to be just that: the biggest debate of the day. I'm very disappointed in that—I have to say that—and what I'm going to do is encourage members from both sides of the House to submit matters to me and I'll consider them. That's how I feel at the moment, but I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW I do think it is important for the House to understand with respect to the MPI that what has previously occurred— Ms Henderson interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Can the member for Corangamite cease interjecting. Mr Burke DYW What has previously occurred with respect to the MPI, on a number of occasions—not a large number—is that, when there has been a compelling reason for debate, the MPI has been withdrawn either by leave or by the person who wrote to you not being in the chamber at the time. It had been pointed out to me that that process was less respectful to you—and, Mr Speaker, you're aware that that had been pointed out to me. The SPEAKER 00APG Yes. Mr Burke DYW And that is the reason that that advice was followed, and an MPI not being submitted at all, because of the genuine significance of the resolution that was coming from the Senate—because, of course, as you'd be aware, if that resolution were reported at 4.15, the procedures to start to deal with it would be interrupted at 4.30 and it would disappear from the paper and the House would not be given an opportunity to make a decision. So, if there is any sense at all that not submitting an MPI was a breach of convention, I simply remind you of the advice I was given as to what was the most respectful way to deal with your office. The SPEAKER 00APG In answer to the Manager of Opposition Business, I respect his intention, but I'm going to point out again—and he and I can have discussions about this, probably not now; it might be better to have them in my office—I don't think it is right for this House, for an official opposition now or into the future, to have hostage of the MPI. If two matters had been submitted to me today, by convention, I would have chosen the opposition one. But, if the opposition didn't put one in and one came before me, we'd have had an MPI. So I think he has to ponder that point. The MPI is not the choice of the opposition; it's in the standing orders of this House. That's my difficulty. I'm just going to leave that thought with him. If I'd had two, of course, the convention would be to pick the opposition. But I'm not going to let the opposition now, or into the future, decide whether or not an MPI occurs. So that's a problem we've got to solve. We don't need to solve it now. I'm aware of your tactical considerations. I'm just aware of what needs to be done in this House, and that's why I was very blunt. If you're waiting for the message, it hasn't come. Even if it had come by now, it wouldn't be before me through the processes that occur and it wouldn't ordinarily be dealt with today. The Australian Senate can pass messages—of course it can, and it can send them here and the House will deal with them—but processes are not going to be altered to suit what might be a tactical issue of the day. I'm just telling you openly, candidly—I've checked with the Clerk—the message has not come from the Senate. It is not here. So I think all of the issues that you're concerned about are not going to arise today. We're in question time. I think we just should move on. The member for Boothby. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 68 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE National Security 68 15:57 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Would the minister update the House on steps the government is taking to strengthen Australian citizenship and protect our nation from foreign fighters and other known terrorists? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches which could put Australians at risk? 15:58 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for her question. Like all Australians, we've watched on in horror as Australians have fallen victim to terrorist attacks in our country. We've paid tribute to our law enforcement and intelligence agencies for keeping Australians safe. They've been able to thwart some 14 attempted attacks in our country. One of the big concerns and threats we have as a Western democracy is the fact of people returning from the Middle East, foreign fighters that have left our shores—in many cases Australian citizens, so they have a right to return back to our country once they've finished in Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever it is that they might be fighting in the name of ISIL, for example. So this government has taken strong decisions in relation to the ways in which we can keep Australians safe. And, from my perspective, and I believe with the support of the Australian people, we have done whatever is constitutionally and legally proper and appropriate to keep those people from our shores. I don't want them coming back. If they're an Australian citizen under the Constitution, they have the ability to come back, and that is the way the law is. Some people say, 'Why would we allow these terrorists to come back and potentially cause a catastrophic event in our country?' So we have to get the balance right. And I believe that we have got the balance right. We've seen 12 dual nationals, because of their actions in relation to terrorist-type activity, lose their Australian citizenship. From my perspective, that is a good thing. Australia is safer because of that. We have had a number of people who have been killed in the Middle East—who have been fighting in the name of ISIL, for example—and, frankly, that is a good outcome as well, because those people will not return to our country to cause harm or to cause a mass casualty event in our country. Imagine my surprise when, this week, the Labor Party backflipped on a bipartisan position to support the government to strengthen the citizenship laws that would make it harder for those terrorists to come back into our country. Imagine my surprise when the member for Isaacs said in the media today that, frankly, he's not interested in supporting government's position. Why would he say that? It seems that every time the shadow Attorney-General—the man who would be the Attorney-General, the first law officer, in a Shorten government—has the opportunity to stand up for a victim he chooses not to. He stands up instead for the criminal. Every time he has the chance to stand up for strong border security, does he do that? No, he stands up for the people smugglers. The member for Isaacs needs to realise that he is paid by the Australian people and he needs to act in Australia's interests. This week, on border protection and national security, he has failed that test. Disability Services 69 16:01 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services. Why won't you save delays, heartache and costly appeals and just let NDIS participants see their draft plan before it's processed by the NDIA? I'd like to acknowledge Senator Jordon Steele-John, who is here today, who is a tremendous advocate for people with disabilities. 16:01 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I do thank the member for Mayo. I acknowledge her strong interest in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is transforming the experience of Australians with disability, with some 250,000 Australians with disability now receiving support. A critical element of the experience that participants have with the National Disability Insurance Scheme is their plan, with developing the plan and then acting upon the plan. The plan will typically have within it a range of supports that are funded and then, under the principle of choice and control, it's open to the participant to go out to choose people to provide those support elements and spend the money that's allocated in the plan. It is important that we have a process under which there is close engagement and consultation between the NDIS participant or their parents or carers, where that's relevant, and with typically their local area coordinator. That's a process that occurs. It's often an interactive process. There is now a face-to-face meeting in every instance. That is something that has been in place from October of last year. What's also important is the work that we are doing to improve the participant pathways. For example, there are dedicated pathways for psychosocial disability. That allows specific expertise to be brought to bear to the particular circumstances of the person with disability. There is a whole range of ways in which are working to improve the experience of participants as they engage with the NDIS. They have the option of seeking an internal review of their plan should they not be happy with it. They also have the option of a formal appeal to the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal. But there has to be a point at which the plan is finalised and when the participant knows with certainty that that funding is available. What can then happen is if they have concerns about the elements of the plan then there are options to seek a review or to seek an appeal. There are 250,000 Australians now being supported under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and we're continuing to expand that number. National Security 69 16:04 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe My question is to the Special Minister of State. Will the minister update the House on how the government is protecting Australians against foreign actors influencing our democracy? What action is the government taking to ensure Australian elections and our democracy are free from foreign interference? Are there any threats to these achievements? 16:04 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I want to thank the member for La Trobe for his question and his service not just to this House but as a police officer prior to coming to parliament. No-one could ever question the loyalty or integrity of the member for La Trobe. The Morrison government will always work to strengthen our democracy and the integrity of our democratic system. As members in this House know, worldwide today, there are increasing threats to democratic systems. We've seen in recent years the terrible toll wreaked on democracies where foreign influence has penetrated even sophisticated democracies. That's why the Morrison government has legislated to make sure that the integrity of Australia's electoral system is safe. We've banned foreign interference in Australian elections, and the Morrison government believes that foreign governments, foreign billionaires and foreign companies have no legitimate role in funding any activities that influence Australian politics or Australian elections. From 1 January this year, foreign donations have been banned by the Morrison government. It's the view of this government that it is only Australians who should determine who forms government in Australia. Foreign sourced funds threaten this principle and they threaten our democratic process. The new legislation restricts political parties, candidates and political campaigners from receiving foreign donations of $1,000 or more, regardless of the purpose. But, importantly, third parties are allowed to receive foreign gifts still unless they are for the express purpose of influencing Australian elections. We've put in place severe penalties for breaching the act: up to a $42,000 fine or three times the amount of the original gift in case of a breach. I want to place on record that this government has put strong anti-avoidance measures into this bill, which is important, because who could possibly oppose stopping foreign influence in Australian elections? Who could possibly think that there would be a problem with doing that? On the front page of The Daily Telegraph the other week, I read an article entitled 'Dastyari's untold story'. I think this might be volume 12 of the untold story—the untold story that never gets told. In the untold story, former Labor luminary and Senator Dastyari says, 'The ban on foreign donations did not solve the problem because there are loopholes you could drive a truck through.' So what are we supposed to believe former Labor Senator Dastyari has been doing with his time since leaving parliament? Is he reading legislation from the Australian parliament and identifying loopholes in our foreign donation system? Is he sitting there thinking, 'How can we avoid this act?' It begs a lot of questions. Has the Leader of the Opposition rung his mate Sam and asked him, 'Would you get off the front page of the paper telling Australians how to subvert our foreign donation laws?' Of course, we know the Leader of the Opposition wouldn't do such a thing because he is weak. We banned foreign donations and this weak Leader of the Opposition will not. MOTIONS 70 MOTIONS Disability Services 70 16:08 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House: 1) notes that: a) Australians with a disability and their loved ones have been crying out for a royal commission to inquire into violence, abuse and neglect to people with disability; b) only a royal commission is has the powers to compel evidence, conduct public hearings and provide a safe place for witnesses to shed a light on the shameful abuse and neglect being suffered by Australians with a disability; c) today in the Senate at approximately 12 pm, the government voted against a royal commission to inquire into violence, abuse and neglect of people with a disability; d) the government is right now desperately running down the clock so there is not enough time for the house to vote on the Senate's message; and e) the government is doing all it can to avoid a second loss on the floor of parliament in just one week; and 2) therefore calls on this Prime Minister to allow enough time in the House so that the Australian people can know where he and the government stands on this important issue. Leave not granted. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Maribyrnong from moving the following motion forthwith—That the House: 1) notes that: a) Australians with a disability and their loved ones have been crying out for a royal commission to inquire into violence, abuse and neglect to people with disability; b) only a royal commission is has the powers to compel evidence, conduct public hearings and provide a safe place for witnesses to shed a light on the shameful abuse and neglect being suffered by Australians with a disability; c) today in the Senate at approximately 12 pm, the government voted against a royal commission to inquire into violence, abuse and neglect of people with a disability; d) the government is right now desperately running down the clock so there is not enough time for the house to vote on the Senate's message; and e) the government is doing all it can to avoid a second loss on the floor of parliament in just one week; and 2) therefore calls on this Prime Minister to allow enough time in the House so that the Australian people can know where he and the government stands on this important issue. Labor has been calling for this royal commission since 26 May 2017. We understand the government does not know how to handle this issue, but that should not be a reason why we cannot vote on the issue of a royal commission. The Senate did a very important report examining the abuse and neglect of people with disability. That report recommended unequivocally that there should be a royal commission. Labor has met with carers, with people living with disability, with their advocates, with people who have shocking stories to tell. The government sort of said that there's no need for a royal commission, that there is the NDIS—that'll fix matters up—or that the aged-care royal commission is a sufficient tool to look after people with disability. There's no doubt that the aged-care royal commission will look at how young people in nursing homes are going, but that is not all people with disability. There is no doubt that the NDIS has some standards and regulations which will cover about 10 per cent of people within the NDIS. But Labor will not give up on this call for a royal commission. We've heard this before. When we called for a royal commission into the banks, the government said there was no need. Eighteen months to two years later, the government eventually came to the party. But this royal commission into the lives of people with disability, and the existence of neglect and abuse, is in many ways much more urgent and in some ways even more serious than the banking royal commission. We need to suspend standing orders to debate whether or not we should have a vote on a royal commission into disability. I draw to the attention of the parliament the Senate committee report, which says: In its submission, Disability Clothesline noted the propensity for violence, abuse and neglect of people with disability living in institutional care to be 'swept under the carpet' and not be properly investigated. The submission contended that momentum for investigation and inquiry of any allegations of this nature requires the following thresholds to be met— and these are criteria that would normally generate a debate about having an inquiry— A person with a disability is raped or abused or killed and there is enough evidence to ascertain that this has occurred. The police or justice system are unable or unwilling to act, for a variety of reasons. A parent of a child or adult with a disability manages to garner enough interest (usually via a sympathetic journalist, after much letter writing and pleading to Ministers) … The relevant Minister is forced to respond. A review is announced. After some lengthy time, the review is conducted. Occasionally an institution is closed. But the problem is that often these criteria for momentum are never fulfilled, and in the meantime people with disability are abused. I understand that in this climate, with this contested parliament at this point in the cycle of the 45th Parliament, it might be tempting just to dismiss this debate and say, 'There's another time to do it.' But when is the right time to have a royal commission? If this is not the right time, when is? And, if we do not do it, who will do it? It is a fact beyond doubt, beyond any conjecture or debate, that people with disability are more likely to suffer violence than people without a disability. It is a fact beyond doubt that children with a disability are three times more likely to experience bullying than children who do not live with a disability. The accounts of abuse in all its forms are harrowing, and I know every member of the parliament is upset when they read these accounts. The question is: what is the solution to the system—business as usual, or something significant of a sufficiently cathartic and powerful nature that we reconsider the whole way in which we're treating people with disability and the fact that they are subject to violence, abuse and neglect? Too many people who have been victims of violence for too long have had to put up with their calls for help being ignored. This call for a royal commission is part of our promise to protect people with a disability from the scourge of violence and bullying, from abuse and marginalisation. When we first called for this royal commission, two years ago, we had no concept or knowledge of the current numbers in this House of parliament. For us, this has been an issue that we made a decision to back in two years ago. We make this decision to support a royal commission, not because we believe we would have a majority in the House but because the idea is the right idea for vulnerable Australians. When we made that announcement I was accompanied by Senator Carol Brown and the member for Jagajaga. We met with people with disability and their parents, their carers and the people who love them. All members of the House have met the sorts of people I'm talking about—courageous people who call out abuse. They've shared their experiences with us, their trauma and their pain. What it is worth members of the House recalling when we suspend standing orders in order to debate the merit of a royal commission into the lives of people with disability and violence and extremism—what we want to say very clearly and what they've said to us—is that this royal commission is not for them; it's for all the people who are still suffering in silence. No-one in this House can guarantee that this abuse will not happen again. No-one in this House can guarantee that we have currently in this nation a foolproof system to protect vulnerable people from neglect and abuse. On the very day that we announced this policy, Anne Malia, whose precious son Matthew suffered abuse, made an appeal to Australia. I'd like her words to be heard in this House now, even if it is in the context of this motion to suspend standing orders. She said: We need to protect, not only the people who have stepped forward and have voiced what's happened to them, but thousands of people and children, adults and children, that don't have a voice, physically do not have a voice. She went on to say—and whether or not we are successful today or on another occasion, her words ring true: We need to be their voices, we need to protect them. Let's do this now, today. We gave a promise then, and we give a promise now, to all the self-advocates, to the families, to the people who live with a disability, to all the parents who have teenage children, who worry about who will keep them safe when they no longer can. I make it clear that, whatever happens in parliament today, Labor is committed to implementing a royal commission to protect people living with a disability from abuse. I understand that in the Senate it may be the case that the government, who voted against the royal commission, could receive the rescue party of One Nation to vote against a royal commission. Whilst that may be the case—that those One Nation senators, such as they are, are valuable allies to the government—I'm going to ask the government to reconsider their opposition to a royal commission into disability. And even if— Mr Pyne 9V5 You don't need a royal commission. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG People say you don't need to have a royal commission—I'll take that interjection from the current Leader of Government Business. A royal commission can exercise coercive power to compel the production of documents. It can compel people to appear and answer questions. It conducts its hearings in public. It can record witnesses' predictions that may not otherwise be available in court proceedings. It is fiercely independent. I know there have been many inquiries into this issue of protecting vulnerable people, but all of these inquiries don't seem to stop the problem. They don't seem to have worked to stop the abuse. We need to have fierce independence in a hearing. We need to have public hearings. We need to have the findings of a royal commission, which are taken more seriously than any other by governments and by the public. Only a royal commission can provide the safe space for people with disabilities. The main recommendation of the 2015 Senate inquiry into violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability was a royal commission. I understand that today it may be easy for the government to say—well, not easy, but the government may say it—that disability shouldn't be the subject of partisanship. I agree that it shouldn't be the subject of partisanship, but it should not be subject to the tyranny of lowest common denominator. People with disability, as we speak, are subject to abuse and neglect. I don't expect that any Prime Minister or government can guarantee, right here and right now, the safety of people living with a disability in Australia. But if we can't guarantee the safety and the freedom from abuse and neglect of people with disability, why, for goodness sake, would we vote against a royal commission to protect Australians living with disability from abuse and neglect? This is why standing orders should be suspended. If we are unsuccessful today, we will not give up until we are successful. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 16:20 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton Indeed the motion is seconded. In 2019, we don't need to read another story in the media about horrific abuse and we don't need to wait another minute; what we need is a royal commission. Every single member of this House has had in their electorate office parents and people with a disability. You all know exactly what we are talking about. You have all sat with these people and you've given them the assurances they need. It should be a point of deep shame for the conservative government that the parliament is again debating the need to call for a royal commission to inquire into the violence and abuse of people with a disability. We already know that 90 per cent of women with an intellectual disability have been sexually assaulted and, for 60 per cent of these women, it occurs before they are 18. We all know that children with disability are at least three times more likely to experience abuse than any other children. It is time for a royal commission. The facts and the stories are numerous and horrific—and we all know them. For far too long this Liberal government have heard the calls of people begging them to take the steps to address the terrible abuse of people with disability and they have resolutely done nothing at all. In May 2017, the Leader of the Opposition announced that the Labor government, upon forming government, would establish a royal commission into the violence and abuse of people with a disability. But here we are, almost two years later, still trying to convince the conservatives that the abuse of people with disability is a serious problem and it must be addressed. We all know the power and the importance of a royal commission. This issue, and the prevalence of the abuse, deserves nothing less than a royal commission. That is what we are asking for on behalf of the thousands and thousands and thousands of people that we all see on a regular basis in our electoral offices. A royal commission is necessary, as the Leader of the Opposition said, for many reasons—some of which he's outlined—but a royal commission will also improve services and supports into the future, including fixing some of the problems with the rollout of the NDIS. Labor has carefully considered the recommendations of the Senate Community Affairs Committee inquiry into violence, abuse and neglect against people with a disability. The first recommendation of that report called for a royal commission into the abuse of people with disability. It is an important statement to have been made. We also say very strongly that Labor believes that people with a disability have the right to be heard and to be believed. We will not allow these sickening crimes to be swept under the carpet while the conservatives continue to bury their heads in the sand. The Liberals think that the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework will be sufficient. No, it won't. A royal commission is required—nothing less. We owe it to the many thousands of people that we talk to constantly. We owe it to the many thousands of people with disability that have experienced abuse and neglect. We owe it to the many thousands of parents whose children have a disability and that have gone through the horror that the Leader of the Opposition outlined of knowing that their child was abused. Try to put yourself in those families' shoes. If you put yourself in their shoes, you will know that nothing less than a royal commission is required on this issue. We stated it clearly two years ago that that's what's required. I say to the government: please listen, if not to me or the Leader of the Opposition or this side of the House, to the people and the families that you have spoken to in your electoral offices, and stay true and strong to the things that you've said to those people. You know a royal commission is required. I ask you to agree to one. 16:25 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank members for their contributions. I note that the motion before the House is in relation to suspension of standing orders. The matter in terms of the motion that was moved in the Senate will be considered by the House when the parliament resumes next week. It was my understanding when I came in here today that that was precisely what was going to occur. What I understood was that today the opposition had cancelled the matter of public importance. As they didn't wish to use the time for the matter of public importance, the government decided to make that time available for question time. Let me be very clear about the issue of a royal commission into the issue of those with disability abuse. Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L They may wish to listen, because I'm going to address the members' points. At no time as Prime Minister have I ever opposed what they are proposing. As Prime Minister, I have not. I have kept an open mind on this question. When this question was put to me, we were considering the issue of a royal commission into aged care. That was the priority I established, as Prime Minister, to move on. But I have not resolved not to do this. I have been considering this matter. My priority has been to deal with the royal commission into aged care, which is now underway. I am yet to see a terms of reference from the opposition, I must say, on this matter. They have had a policy for two years and yet no terms of reference. I suggest that one should have been produced, and I would have happily looked at one that was produced. My point is very simple: this matter will be considered by the House. The government will consider this in all seriousness, as it should. These are serious issues. In the past, the government, in responding to Senate committees and numerous other reports, has taken the position that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is a scheme that is still being built. It is not yet built. To have a royal commission into a system that is effectively still being built—one would question the wisdom of that at this time. That said, that does not in any way, shape or form turn away from or fail to acknowledge the very serious issues of abuse that we know occur. I am asking the opposition to continue to engage. I and my government will continue to engage on this issue. There are many ways that the issues that have been raised about abuse can be addressed, even, potentially, within the existing royal commission that we have established. But I will not let us leave this place with some suggestion that the government does not take these issues seriously. What we have done in government is act on royal commissions. The opposition, in the past, when they were in government, did not call a royal commission into this issue. They did not call a royal commission into the banks. They did not call a royal commission into aged care. On the latter points, we have done both and we are acting on both. We are acting on all 76 recommendations of the banking royal commission just concluded, and the royal commission into aged care is underway. On this further issue, we are open to considering how it can be best progressed. We have been taking action on these issues specifically through the commission that has been established, through the NDIS, to have the powers to examine and to provide remedies where these cases come up. There is another part of the motion that has been put by the Leader of the Opposition, and it bells the cat as to the motive behind the opposition's actions this afternoon. I'm not afraid of losing votes in this House; I lost one on Tuesday! But I'll tell you who the losers were—the Australian people. The Australian people saw the weakness of a Leader of the Opposition who is more interested in the politics of this Canberra bubble than the border protection of our nation. I was prepared to come in here and face down the loss of that vote, because I have the courage of my convictions when it comes to border protection. The Leader of the Opposition cannot hold a candle to my convictions when it comes to protecting the security of this nation. So vote against us, if you like. Try and turn the tables on border protection, if you like. There is no middle ground between the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties on border protection. There is a wide and huge chasm. There is no middle ground between us— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 74 ADJOURNMENT Disability Services 74 16:30 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Well, isn't that a disappointing end to the debate on the suspension of standing orders to move a motion about disability? And we have a Prime Minister who's ranting about border protection. Doesn't he get that people with a disability have waited long enough for a royal commission into what is happening in the sector? On 6 November 2015 there was a Victorian government parliamentary committee meeting in my electorate to discuss with people what is going on with disability. At the committee hearing, a number of parents spoke, a number of people with a disability spoke and a number of organisations spoke. But that committee, like all committees, did not have the powers that a royal commission has. That is why the Senate earlier today passed a motion calling for the creation of a royal commission into the disability sector. That is why this House should do the same to consider that. That is why the Labor Party, two years ago, called for this government—and we have committed, if we have the opportunity to form government—to start a royal commission into the disability sector. For far too long, people with a disability, their parents, their carers and their family members, and organisations, have suffered in silence. As others on this side of the House have pointed out, they've been fobbed off, pushed back and told their issue was too complicated to be investigated. That is why there is the need for a royal commission into the disability sector. From people that I've met with in my own electorate, I know the heartbreak of a parent, the heartbreak of a sister or brother coming and telling you their story about their loved one and what they've gone through. All these people are seeking is justice—and justice is, quite frankly, for some, too hard to achieve. What they're also seeking is reform to the sector. The Prime Minister came in here and ranted all about the NDIS. This is beyond the NDIS. You shouldn't delay a royal commission because the NDIS has not been properly rolled out. The NDIS is an insurance scheme that has been created to ensure that people with a disability have access to the equipment they need and access to the support they require, and there are flaws with its rollout. But this royal commission would go beyond that. It would be about people who are in care and about the inadequacy of our services to be able to follow up complaints. It would go into the very complex nature of what goes wrong when somebody with a disability is injured, is abused or is mistreated whilst in care. I've also got concerns about the NDIS and its rollout, and I've requested to meet with Intereach staff to learn more about why, with claims in my part of the world, things are so hard. It's heartbreaking when you meet with people and they say that what they are receiving in the way of support is less today than what it was before the NDIS. That is heartbreaking. I've heard from people who are blind, who are seeking support, who are continuing to work, despite their disability. Previously, they received an ongoing transport allowance to get them to and from work, yet under the NDIS, in the first plan that was offered to them, they were told they could catch the train. Anybody living in a regional area knows how ridiculous it is to suggest to anybody to catch a train from Bendigo to Epsom and walk—they were told to catch a train and walk the kay from the train station to their workplace. Regional stations just don't have the lighting and the safe walk routes that we have in some of our metro areas. It was clearly not suitable. We supported this person, like so many others. It shouldn't be that hard. Yes, there are problems with the rollout that we need to continue to work through—absolutely. The model isn't working for employees. Many have been forced onto zero-hour contracts, people who have not had the opportunity to continue to work in the sector as full-time employees. We need to continue to work on the rollout of the NDIS to improve it, but that shouldn't be the excuse for not proceeding with the royal commission into the mistreatment and the abuse of people with a disability. United Nations General Assembly, Australian Volunteers for International Development 74 16:35 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore There is absolutely no way I can express the deep and heartfelt pride I felt to be part of the United Nations General Assembly last year. Truly, Australia is a well-respected world leader and negotiator at the discussions, forums and votes at the international gathering. There are conferences within conferences and events held over lunchtimes and evenings, pushing information exchange opportunities until you feel overwhelmed and diminished by the sheer passion, exuberance and dedication of everyone involved—from Gillian Bird, Head of Mission, and Tegan Brink, Deputy Head of Mission, to David Yardley, Natalie Cohen, Peter Stone and Brad Bressington. I thank each and every one of you for your briefings, friendship, explanations and efforts in getting me up to speed on huge and significant international scenarios and initiatives. Australia can do, and does, an outstanding job and is so well respected. But you would never know that from our domestic media, which is such a shame. Our efforts are applauded and often other much larger nations follow our lead. I was privileged to meet Ian Bate and Philippa Adams, both working with the AFP and they told me of the UN initiatives and events, training international security forces. What an absolute blast it was to be able to present to the United Nations Security Council Australia's position paper on women, peace and security. I quote some of that speech here: There is no one-size-fits-all solution to ensuring women's meaningful participation in peace processes. We need research, and to share knowledge, to translate the theoretical concepts of the Women, Peace and Security agenda, into action and good practice. We need to identify solutions and approaches that are context specific, inclusive, and informed by experience, especially that of local actors. Towards Inclusive Peace is an Australian-funded research project, in partnership with Australian Universities, focusing on Women, Peace and Security, in the Indo-Pacific region. This research, which also informed the Expert Report, is showing that one of the most crucial factors in securing lasting peace agreements, is the active presence of women's civil society organisations. I think most women would have been able to point to that. I continue: Women's organisations are on the ground before, during and after conflicts, they help mediate and resolve conflict, rebuild community relations and trust in institutions. Yet women's organisations in our region tell us that it is often only when women enter the post-conflict security sector, or government, that their governance skills, capabilities and qualities are fully appreciated. I learnt that Australia is the founding and largest donor to the Women's Peace and Humanitarian Fund, in support of women's grassroots organisations. Indeed, I was honoured to speak on behalf of our nation on three separate occasions, and I will forever hold these as precious and unique moments of national pride. Ending domestic violence is seen not only as a human right for women but also as the catalyst for enhancing the social fabric of a nation, leading to overall peace and security—big aims, a big picture, but a huge international benefit. I would hope that everyone does something positive to raise awareness of domestic and family violence, and then take action for its prevention. I was completely taken aback when I chose to attend a session called the Legacy of UNMIL. I thought, 'So many acronyms, and what am I doing attending a United Nations Military in Liberia session?' It was a fascinating brief of Australia's research and potential change for good by looking more closely at the UN peacekeeping mission in urban environments. What can be done with the military infrastructure after departure? Offices, hospitals and security are all sitting in a green zone bubble. Australia has an idea of integrating these into the greater community, and it began in Liberia. In general, Australians are often in the dark about our role and our significance in the United Nations. We truly need to make sure that we know what is going on. I thank the Hon. Jenny Macklin for her friendship as we shared this experience. On my return, one of my constituents came and shared her story, to add to the understanding of the great work that Australia does in its aid program. Carol Scherret went as a skilled volunteer with the Australian Volunteers for International Development program to take on the challenges of creating genuine vocational pathways for students with disabilities in Fiji. Vocational pathways are rare there, the usual outcome being crime, begging or domestic duties, and they're stuck with their family. Carol recognised that hospitality and tourism could be a solution. They were a bit worried about abuse of these vulnerable students, so the work experience outside the school and supervision was seen as too great a risk. Instead they had a pop-up cafe. All teaching areas contributed, including art, money handling and food safety. Students ran their own cafe. Good on you, Australia. We've done it again. Newcastle Electorate: Infrastructure 75 16:40 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I'd like to take this opportunity in the House to officially throw my support behind the need to rebuild an important local infrastructure project—namely, the Boscawen Street bridge in Wallsend. Wallsend is a central commercial hub of Newcastle's western suburbs. It's a dynamic and growing place, home to thousands of hardworking, decent, salt-of-the-earth Novocastrians. But it's gone through some pretty rough times, especially in the aftermath of the deadly June 2007 storm. While everybody knows that astonishing image of the Pasha Bulker ship grounded on Nobbys Beach, the lasting devastation of this storm was felt, perhaps, most deeply in communities like Wallsend. Nelson Street in the central business district was absolutely smashed. Water inundated many shops up to four or five feet deep and even breached second storeys in some of those business premises. The clean-up took weeks. Sadly, some people went out of business entirely, and indeed some shops remain empty to this day. Many business owners remained but watched their insurance bills skyrocket. It's been nearly 12 years since the superstorm wreaked havoc on Wallsend, but every time it rains hard the people of Wallsend—the residents and business owners—are on tenterhooks wondering if this is going to happen again. Importantly, the Newcastle City Council has developed a flood mitigation plan, but remedies don't come cheap, and implementation is most certainly beyond the financial capacity of local government. Wallsend is being held back, and this won't change until something is done. That's why today I'm throwing my support behind the $300 million project to rebuild Boscawen Street bridge so that it doesn't continue to trap floodwater. I'd like to send the loudest possible message that I can that this project deserves backing. I know there is an enormous groundswell of community support already. The hardworking state member for Wallsend, Sonia Hornery, has been a great champion for action, and I know that our community is 100 per cent behind her, but we need to dial this up a notch and shout it so loud that even those here in Canberra get to hear the message. So today I'm encouraging everybody who wants to see this bridge finally rebuilt to get on my website and sign the petition, send a letter to the paper, shoot me an email or post something on Facebook to let me know that this matters to you, because together we can get this done. Boscawen is one of the three bridges that need rebuilding, along with Tyrell Street and Nelson Street, in Wallsend. Specifically, a number of issues have been identified with the current structure, including the low clearance on the bridge, the handrails and the intermediate piers, which have a high chance of trapping cars, shopping trolleys and items that come down through the drainpipes, causing blockages. To solve this, the bridge has to be reconstructed. It has to have those piers removed, creating a single-span bridge which would improve the flow capacity in large flood events, allowing for the future channel-widening project. While council has already allocated funds for the Tyrell Street bridge rebuild, it is seeking funds elsewhere for Nelson Street, and I would like to see the federal government pitch in to fix Boscawen Street bridge. I've already had discussions with the lord mayor about this project, and council has submitted a formal application for funding consideration to me. I've also started the conversations with my federal colleagues about just how important this is, but the reason I'm talking about this project today in the House is that there's a federal budget coming up in a few months, and this presents a great opportunity to put pressure on this government to commit to a very worthwhile local infrastructure project that is beyond the capacity of local government to fund alone. The economic and social wellbeing of an entire community is affected by the health and wellbeing of that central business district in Wallsend. That's why the Boscowen Street bridge needs to be rebuilt. I'll make sure that this message gets back to government members so they can understand what this funding would mean to our community. Given we are so close to an election, I will, of course, also impress upon my Labor colleagues the importance of this project. I think we've got a great chance. It's a great project— (Time expired) Deakin Electorate: Infrastructure 76 16:45 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I take this opportunity to speak about some very exciting and practical announcements of funding that we have made in relation to infrastructure in my electorate. For many, many years—indeed, predating my time in parliament—one of the biggest bugbears for people who live in my community has been access to public transport and, in particular, being able to park at one of our local railway stations. We all know the difficulty if you don't live within walking distance of a train station. Sadly, with some of our substandard bus services, for many people, the only way they can get to their train in the morning is to drive down to the station. At a number of stations in my electorate—in particular, Croydon, Ringwood and Mitcham—getting a car park is nearly impossible after about seven or 7.30 in the morning. At Croydon station, it's almost impossible to get a car park from 7 am; at Ringwood station, it's almost impossible to get a car park any time after quarter past or 20 past six; and, at Mitcham station, it's really impossible to get a car park any time after 7.30 am. That has had huge impacts in those communities because, inevitably, those people need to park in side streets or park adjacent to areas where we've got shopping strips and other local community services, so I was very pleased when Alan Tudge joined me at Croydon station just a couple of weeks ago to announce that we would be funding multilevel car parks at Croydon, Ringwood and Mitcham stations. In the case of Croydon station, $15 million will fully fund the construction of a multideck car park that will have 487 car spaces. To put that into some context, there are only about 170 all-day car spaces at Croydon station at present. To add an extra 487 is going to change the day-to-day lives of commuters at Croydon station. It doesn't change your life, but it makes your morning just that little bit easier, when it would otherwise mean that you arrive at the station where there are no car parks when you've got a train to catch and demands that require you to get to work. These car parks will make it just that little bit easier. We also announced $15 million to build a multistorey car park at Ringwood station and that will ensure that we have an additional 482 spaces there. Again, the overflow into the local streets in Ringwood has really caused an issue for local residents, but, more importantly, for the people who actually need to get a train, being unable to find a park makes life extraordinarily difficult. Finally, we announced $15 million for a multilevel car park at Mitcham station. We think that will fund around 500 car spaces, equivalent to the other two stations which, again, will take so much pressure off the side streets of Mitcham and give commuters that easier access to get on at Mitcham station. Extra car parks do two things. Yes, they make those commuters' lives just that little bit easier. It will encourage people, I think, to use public transport and, therefore, get cars off the road. In this case, each day, we will take 1,500 cars off the road, so it's good for easing congestion on our roads and it makes life easier for those who want to commute. When I was lobbying for this funding, and I might add this is fully funded—these are not election commitments; these are fully funded, and work has already commenced on them—it was important to me that, along the Belgrave and Lilydale line, we didn't fund a multilevel car park at just one station. I think the risk of doing that is that you turn that station into a destination, more and more people flock to it and, in the end, you haven't improved the situation for the commuters at that station or the local residents. By funding these three stations, nearly 500 car parks at each, you take pressure off the entire network, and we're very confident this is going to take pressure off each of them—Croydon station and its surrounds, Ringwood station and its surrounds, and Mitcham station and its surrounds. This is practical infrastructure that makes life just that little bit easier, and I'm very pleased to be delivering this for the Deakin electorate. Queensland: Floods, Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry 77 16:50 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I stand here today on behalf of all Townsville residents who are experiencing bullying and intimidation tactics by the banks and insurance companies, and to say to the LNP government: you had better watch out, because right now what is happening in my town to people in distress is on your watch. The banking royal commission handed down its recommendations, and the LNP government are refusing to act on any of the recommendations until after the election. Townsville flood victims who are being bullied by the banks and insurance companies cannot wait until after an election for the implementation of these recommendations. I will now recount to you an email that was sent to me today by a flood victim in Townsville who is being bullied and harassed by the Commonwealth Bank's insurance arm and who needs the recommendations of the banking royal commission implemented now. Matt says: We have lost everything we own at our rental house in Townsville. We are a family of five. Three children aged 1, 4 and 6. We have our contents insured with CommInsure. Our experience has consisted of the following flagrant and unprofessional and uncompassionate practices in chronological order: 1. Over twenty hours of on-hold time to lodge our claim and understand the CommInsure claim assessment process and estimated timeframes. 2. Each call received by different staff who provided inconsistent and/or conflicting advice 3. Rejection of request for direct contact for claim manager to avoid one or two hour hold times 4. Neglect to offer policy entitlement to financial compensation for alternative/emergency accommodation 5. Encouragement to accept emergency cash payment for temporary/emergency accommodation at every query—following hours of on-hold and multiple interactions with staff, we learn that the emergency cash payment will get deducted from final settlement for contents (that is; we can't pay to replace items written off by CommInsure assessor) 6. Informed that our entitlement to temporary accommodation was separate to contents claim, but we needed to accept cash payout anyway—told that direct payment to accommodation was unlikely to be accepted by accommodation. Not true. 7. We were forced to find furnished accommodation that was within financial bracket communicated by CommInsure. They paid for two weeks temporary accommodation. 8. Request to extend accommodation denied—terms of policy ignored 9. Request to extend granted after multiple queries regarding policy terms. 10. Supervisor of claim phones to inform that our request to extend our entitlement to temporary accommodation was beyond reasonable because: —we required a furnished apartment —we were looking to find equivalent rental properties 11. Supervisor encouraged: we lower our standards to consider unfurnished accommodation—his assessor wrote off all of our contents 12. Supervisor encouraged: we consider accommodation further from schools and my work—second car and push bike written off meaning I will have to live within walking distance— that is, of work. It goes on: 13. Supervisor encouraged: we consider lower standard of living accommodation so that we stop our need for temporary/emergency accommodation We are massively stressed and traumatised from losing everything we own. Our experiences with CommInsure have made or stress levels so much worse. We've had to seek medical advice/intervention as a result of CommInsure induced stress. The stress and time needed to deal with CommInsure stalling and bullying tactics has also delayed my return to work. Can you please help? Well, Matt, I can, by standing here today in this place and fighting for you. Matt and his family have survived the worst floods in Townsville's history. But what they can't put up with are the bullying tactics of CommInsure. Matt and his family should not have to put up with these bullying tactics, because the LNP government should do what they are paid to do by hardworking taxpayers like Matt. They should do their job of governing, and enact the banking royal commission's recommendations instead of protecting the interests of the banks. I demand that the LNP government put Townsville flood victims before their banking mates. People like Matt, in our community, should not be under this undue stress and pressure at a time when they have lost everything. I cannot believe that an insurance company would suggest to someone that they lower their standard of living. That is outrageous, with three young children and with one car gone and the bike gone. They can't get to work. How do they get their child to school? It is simply unacceptable. This government must act upon the banking royal commission recommendations immediately. Forde Electorate: Roads 78 16:55 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's a great pleasure to stand in this place and speak about the terrific beginning to the year of 2019 for my electorate of Forde. It's been just a couple of weeks since the Prime Minister was last in my electorate. At that visit, I had the pleasure, with the Prime Minister, of announcing a $50 million investment in the upgrade of interchanges on the M1 motorway at Yatala and at Pimpama, commonly known as exits 41 and 49. Along with that there is a $30 million investment for new works on the Mount Lindesay Highway. Congestion on the M1 causes daily frustration to thousands of commuters between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Heavy traffic not only causes problems for our residents; it also has an adverse effect on our region's businesses. Congestion holds us up from getting to work, getting kids to school and doing day-to-day business in our community. Anyone who uses the M1—and I certainly do, as it's a key road in my electorate—knows how frustrating it can be sitting in that traffic. With Logan's population expected to grow to more than 452,000 people by 2031 and the Gold Coast's population expected to grow to more than 798,000, congestion on the M1 is only expected to get worse. We've seen in Infrastructure Australia's priority report today further recognition of that fact. So this funding is more important than ever. This commitment of $50 million to exits 41 and 49 adds to our existing commitment to the M1 of over $1.2 billion that is dealing with projects at the Gateway, M1 and M3 merge at Eight Mile Plains and, following on from that, the section from Springwood to Daisy Hill and also the southern part of the M1 on the Gold Coast, from Robina to Varsity Lakes and Varsity Lakes to Tugan. The investment of $30 million into the Mount Lindesay Highway is critically important because that road is becoming increasingly busy, not just from commuter traffic but also from freight traffic. What's happened out on the Mount Lindesay Highway is that the state government has built two new satellite cities out there, in Yarrabilba and Flagstone, but not spent the money necessary to provide the public transport and infrastructure networks to accommodate those growing populations. Importantly, this coalition government understands the importance of investing in our roads to keep up with the pace of a booming population. We believe in being smarter and more forward-thinking in our investment, rather than seeing taxpayer dollars wasted on Labor's often expensive and quick-fix solutions. With Forde being one of the fastest growing electorates in Australia and with a large economic hub at Yatala, the Yatala Enterprise Area, on the northern Gold Coast, these developments will improve the local economy, deliver more jobs and, more importantly, provide a safer journey for motorists. And this is not only important for mums and dads taking kids to school in the morning; we see the growth of business and the growing freight task coming in and going out of the Yatala Enterprise Area. When we were there making the announcement, the number of B-double trucks and more general trucks going past were testament to that. I'm pleased to say that, since 2010, through working hard with my local community and with their support through our Fix the M1 petition, we've succeeded in getting funding of over $1.2 billion for the M1 and over $46 million for the Mount Lindesay Highway. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 17:00   The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou) took the chair at 11:00.

Thursday, 14 February 2019

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou) took the chair at 11:00.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 80 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Perth Electorate 80 11:00 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth As I rise, millions of couples across Australia are celebrating a day dedicated entirely to love. I spoke in my first speech about love, and I said that the work of the parliament is about love. On Valentine's Day, here is my valentine to the people of Perth: Labor is red The Liberals are blue To the people of Perth Here's my vision for you Where we live is the best There's no city like Perth But we can work together To make it the best on Earth I've put together a plan Some goals to complete To improve and grow our home And deliver for this seat The locals see red For the web leaves them blue Their connection too slow And that just will not do We'll fix the NBN Deliver high speed browsing Whether it's for business or play We'll connect to your housing And for those in Morley We'll deliver the train Onwards to Ellenbrook The track will be lain Now it need not be said But Perth has a past It was thought of as dead And that can not last My next goal is to make Perth city world class How will we do that Well, I'm glad you asked Let's develop the old Power station site Turn it into something That's an incredible sight Then from Kings Park And down to the Quay Let's build a light rail Sounds good to me Next up is business Who I vow to back Let's drive an economy Where their work shall not lack Let's encourage innovation And also skill our people Because without employees Our businesses would be feeble We'll invest in TAFE Give students a fair go An education they'll get With all they need to know Finally, I'll make sure We love our local space With all our parks and river lands Perth is a magical place I'll stand up for this space 100 per cent To hand down to our kids A clean environment That's my Plan for Perth Some big things to do Because we all love our City And it's well over due. So to wrap up this speech Lastly, I'll say Let's show some more love And Happy Valentine's Day. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I thank the member for Perth. Green Eggs and Ham it is! Gordon, Mr Angus, OAM 81 11:02 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Madam Deputy Speaker, I wait for the day when the member for Perth brings in background music to his speeches too! I rise today to acknowledge Angus Gordon OAM and all that he has done in service to the community of Mackellar over a number of decades. Angus, a resident of North Narrabeen, has been at the forefront of environmental management and planning in our community, helping with storm preparation and damage management, and was recently awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia. In 2016, Angus oversaw the installation of geobags, also known as giant sandbags, to act as a temporary seawall at Collaroy. Such planning served a number of houses on the Northern Beaches and helped to minimise damage to local homes and infrastructure whilst safeguarding the community in which we all live. Being in a coastal area, the community of Mackellar is often prone to acts of nature that can cause widespread damage. The Collaroy-Narrabeen beachfront has been named the top erosion hotspot on the New South Wales coast, due to the proximity of the houses to the beach. The 2016 storm saw waves of up to eight metres hit Collaroy, washing backyards into the ocean and even destroying a swimming pool. Such an environment makes people like Angus—those willing to answer the call and to serve the community—all the more important and deserving of recognition. In 1976, Angus established the New South Wales government's Beach Improvement Program and led the team that in 1978 produced the first coastal investigation and management study in New South Wales. He was also involved in the drafting and implementation of the 1979 New South Wales Coastal Protection Act and has served as General Manager of Pittwater Council. Such roles have allowed Angus to play a part in the planning of the Northern Beaches, helping to ensure that the area continues to be protected from the worst that nature can throw at it. In addition to his coastal work accolades, Angus was the founding president of the Down Syndrome Association of New South Wales. The association provides a dedicated information and referral service for families, as well as peer-to-peer support, workshops and community events for members. Since its inception, the association has continued to grow, and today, 38 years later, continues to provide much-needed support, information and resources to people with Down syndrome and their families. I'm proud to acknowledge Angus for his service to environmental management and protecting our community from serious storm damage as well as for his work with the Down Syndrome Association of New South Wales. Angus is a worthy recipient of the Medal of the Order of Australia, and all of us in the community of Mackellar are lucky to count him as one of our own. Thank you. International Greek Language Day 82 11:05 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh () (): It gives me great pleasure today to rise and speak about International Greek Language Day. Following years of effort and campaigning by academics, teachers and Greek people around the world, 9 February was declared International Greek Language Day in 2017. The date was selected because it was also the official date for the commemoration of the Greek national poet Dionysios Solomos, who wrote the Greek national anthem, titled Hymn to Libertyor Ymnos is tin Eleftherian. The main aim of the recent initiatives was to celebrate the vital, fundamental role played by the Greek language in the shaping of Western civilisation throughout the centuries. This initiative encourages Greek people around the world, as well as anyone else who's intrigued by the Greek language and culture, to learn this most ancient and fascinating of Western languages. For those of us of Greek origin, it is important to learn and love the Greek language because of its beauty, its colourful language and its virtues, but mainly because it expresses a great culture. The Greek language shaped and codified the first layer of vocabulary and the basic concepts of Western civilisation, as you would know, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, being an academic of the Greek language, speaking it fluently for years and teaching it as well. Over the centuries its contribution to the world has been immense, enhancing and spreading Greek culture, and today it's considered one of the world's oldest languages. It's well known around the world that Greek is the foundation language of science and medicine. We use Greek words every single day, since an astonishing 80 per cent of scientific terms have the Greek language at their roots. Greek words are found across the world in fields such as astronomy, mathematics, philosophy, medicine, logic, politics and religion as well as many more areas of the human endeavour. Democracy—what we practice here every single day—is a Greek word. Together with ancient Latin texts and traditions from the Roman world, the study of Ancient Greek writings and society constitutes classical Western learning. The Greek language is also one of the EU's official languages, with Greek being spoken by millions of people around the world: in Greece and in Cyprus but also in the diaspora in Australia and everywhere that Greeks have made their home. Today I also want to acknowledge Her Excellency, Ekaterini Xagorari, who's here as the ambassador of Greece to Australia, and High Commissioner Her Excellency Martha Mavrommatis, who have done so much to encourage and to promote International Greek Language Day. 11:08 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT With the chamber's indulgence: [Greek language not transcribed]. I just simply repeated in Greek what the member for Hindmarsh said in his closing words. Dairy Industry 82 11:09 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to bring to the attention of this house a dilemma facing the dairy producers of this great nation. Just the other day, on the Comboyne plateau, I met with good friends and colleagues Rodney and Sue Fisher, only to hear that what has been threatened has come to be this year. He and Sue have ceased being dairy producers. They are among many who have exited, are considering exiting or are making plans to exit the dairy industry. The dilemma is that there has been a slow constriction of profitability over many years, based on the poor farm-gate prices that dairy producers face. Why is this so? We have a market that is operating, but it's been an unfair market with distortions. There is undue power at the top end of the market that dominoes bad effects and bad decisions all the way down to the producer, who's got nowhere to go. What faced Rodney and Sue Fisher faces every dairy farmer: increasing costs for fuel—namely, grass—for water, whether it's irrigated or falling from the sky; fertilisers; machinery; diesel; electricity; labour; repairs and maintenance; and investment in genetics. The costs of all those things go up, but the price of milk relatively has been coming down. Eventually dairy producers realise there is no future. We have been working very hard to correct this market imbalance through the development of a mandatory code of conduct that will apply to all dairy purchasing agreements, but we are in an emergency situation. We need a response now to keep dairy producers in the industry. Too many of them are leaving. That is why I propose a temporary 12-month levy. I'm writing and speaking to Woolies, Coles and ALDI, the big retailers that have huge market power and drive prices down, not just with dollar-a-litre milk but with the price that processors are getting, which has been squeezed. On the premium price they get for their branded milk, they've had their percentages shrunk over time, and they have to provide a discount price for unbranded milk, which has increased in volume, so they're being squeezed at both ends. Then that is transmitted down to the producers. Whether you're on the Comboyne Plateau or in the Manning Valley, the Hastings Valley, the Lower Macleay or down into the Hunter and below, the same thing faces you all. (Time expired) Telecommunications 83 11:12 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley In an era where we marvel at what technology enables us to do, we often think of the good things it achieves, but we also need to be mindful that technology can be used against people in very harmful ways. There will always be people—it is always the case that there are bad apples—who want to do terrible things. It's the responsibility of governments to frame up laws and approaches and empower responsible agencies to deal with this. In the debate around encryption last year there was a recognition that we need to allow security agencies to have a degree of power to tackle those bad actors that want to harm people, but, in doing so, we need to frame and use laws that will not actually, through overreach, undermine the very things that we rely upon. Encryption, as much as it has been framed in national security terms, is also about economic security, because it is a platform that allows businesses to build a commodity that is not necessarily tracked on a daily basis but means a lot to people in the real world. It's the commodity that I would refer to as trust. Knowing that data can be provided between players in an environment where you trust that data is crucial. Yet the laws that this government put forward on encryption have been truly badly framed, ignoring the advice of so many people and trashing the reputation of those in the know. Those people have cautioned about the way in which the government has botched encryption laws and effectively trashed Australia's tech industry reputation globally. It is a sight to behold. I was very glad to see this week a number of people whom I have high regard for within Australia's tech sector speak so openly, led by Scott Farquhar from Atlassian and people like WiseTech's Richard White and 99designs's Patrick Llewellyn. All these people are saying this will have a terrible impact on Australia's tech industry because it's making people in other parts of the world doubt whether they can rely upon Australian tech. It is terrible. This law has to be changed. We need to make sure we have proper judicial oversight in there. We need to make sure that elements of this bill, where it allows individual employees to be approached and compelled to assist, and not tell people what they're doing and mess with a sensitive encryption system that undermines the basis of trust, are looked at. The recommendations of the parliamentary oversight committee that have been completely ignored by this government need to be dealt with. These laws must change. We have to get the balance right between national security and economic security. Boothby Electorate: Brighton Surf Life Saving Club 83 11:15 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby It's only February, but the Brighton Surf Life Saving Club has had a very busy and hugely successful start to the year. On Sunday, 6 January the club officially opened their new surf lifesaving tower, which provides much better visibility of the beach for lifeguards on patrol. It was wonderful to join President Chris Parsons, Billy Jackson, Craig Caldicott and other volunteers, along with my state colleagues Corey Wingard and David Speirs, to celebrate the completion of the tower. The tower helps keep our volunteers out of the elements and gives them a much better view of the beach. I was delighted to secure $40,000 in federal funding towards the tower. And I thank President Chris and the club for working with me to achieve this. I was also delighted to hear that the tower will be named after club member Billy Jackson. Two decades ago, Billy came to Australia from Scotland and quickly joined the club to help overcome his fear of the ocean. In 2015, he was awarded Australian Lifesaver of the Year in recognition of his leadership and countless volunteer hours dedicated to surf lifesaving. Billy, on behalf of our community, thank you for everything you have done for surf lifesaving and for demonstrating leadership in volunteering. I'm so pleased that your efforts will be permanently recorded by the plaque under the tower. President Chris also told me that within days of the tower opening, lifeguards helped a swimmer they would not have otherwise been able to see, so the investment in the tower has already paid for itself. Not long after the tower opening, I joined the South Australian Governor, His Excellency the Hon. Hieu Van Le and Mrs Le; my state colleagues Corey Wingard, Stephen Patterson and David Speirs; and Mayor Amanda Wilson and councillors from the City of Holdfast Bay for the opening of this year's Brighton Jetty Sculptures on 23 January. I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate all of the artists who entered the competition and whose artworks provided beautiful decoration for the beach. Thank you, especially, to the sculptures committee, chaired by Glen Millar, and all of the volunteers who helped put on another very successful event, which is a really important fundraiser for the Brighton Surf Life Saving Club. The record 205 entries attracted an estimated attendance of over 180,000 people and is a true credit to the incredibly hard work of these amazing volunteers. Over the Australia Day long weekend, the surf club once again hosted swimmers for the Australian Open Water Swimming Championships. Thank you to those volunteers who then also supported the Brighton Jetty Classic on 3 February, which features the famous Marilyn Jetty Swim, founded by Sarah Tinney. All of these events benefited from the incredible safety provided by the tower, and I once again congratulate and thank the club and every single volunteer for making the tower possible and for all they do to keep everyone safe on the beach each summer. National Disability Insurance Scheme 84 11:18 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I rise today to address serious concerns I have about the bureaucracy of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Whilst it's no surprise that I recognise the NDIS as the most significant policy reform since Medicare, feedback from patients and constituents is that administrative barriers continue to act as the greatest hurdles to accessing the benefits and aims of the scheme. I'm prompted once again to raise concerns about the shortage of assessors and case managers within the agency who have experience with paediatric care. As a paediatrician of nearly four decades who continues to deal very closely with severely disabled children, it's apparent that often the children who are missing out on care are those who come from families that struggle to advocate for the needs of their children, and these children are often the most disadvantaged in our community. Too often, advocates need to be assertive, well-versed in medical terminology and treatments, and have a thorough understanding of how to deal with red tape. Whilst families have the best intentions of their children at heart, it's unconscionable that many severely disabled children miss out on necessary care due to no fault of their own. The same is true for some severely disabled adults. Recently I met an adult who was a patient of mine as a child. He has cerebral palsy. Now, as an adult, he is denied access to botulinum toxin injections for his severe spasticity. That is an absolute tragedy. It will decrease his mobility, it is much more likely he will end up in a wheelchair, and it will make his life much more difficult. To meet the organisational goals of the NDIS more emphasis needs to be placed on training staff who understand disabilities, particularly in regard to paediatric care and those with severe neurological disabilities. A common criticism that patients and families espouse to me is that, too often, constructive criticism regarding the NDIS falls upon deaf ears. When I set out to run for the seat of Macarthur, I vowed to my patients that, whilst my involvement as a paediatrician would be limited, I would represent them, their stories and experiences, and advocate for a better system. Certainly with the NDIS we need to do this, and I need to continue, because it is not working. Naturally, I took up the cause of representing the families of Macarthur who fell through the NDIS's gaps. That includes families who themselves might have disabilities, those from a non-English speaking background and those whose children require constant care and attention. Too often these families share with me their experiences of systematic failure and systematic delays. Recently I had contact with a family who needed their home modified for their child with severe cerebral palsy. They have spent three years trying to get the system put in place and still have nothing done. This needs to change and we need to act urgently to improve the NDIS for all these families. Moore Electorate: Sporting Clubs 84 11:21 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore A number of local sporting projects in my electorate are worthy of funding support in the upcoming federal budget. A federal contribution towards constructing a patio and kitchen extension at HBF Arena in Joondalup will benefit several clubs which utilise the shared clubhouse facility including the Joondalup Brothers Rugby Union Football Club, the Joondalup Little Athletics Club, Team XTR Triathlon, Joondalup Netball Association, Joondalup Lakers Hockey Club and other community groups. I am pleased to work closely with representatives of the local clubs, including Liam Smyth, Garth Davis, Phil Bossert, Cameron Britt and Kylie Kershaw in securing funding to improve these sporting facilities. There is precedent for federal funding of surf clubs, with many surf clubs in the eastern states receiving federal grants. The clubhouse extensions at Sorrento Surf Lifesaving Club are worthy of funding. The club celebrated its 60th anniversary last year. In order to meet the needs of a current and forecasted membership base a redevelopment concept plan has been proposed by the committee to increase the floor area of the clubhouse to just over 2,100 square metres. A federal grant of $500,000 would enable the construction of a fitness hub and staircase at Whitfords Nodes Park, providing panoramic views from a lookout platform at the top of the dunes, which can be climbed for exercise. Federal sports minister Senator Bridget McKenzie visited the Moore electorate in December last year, and I am advocating very strongly for this landmark local project. I recently provided a letter of support for $500,000 of federal funding to the North Shore Country Club and Residents' Association for a clubhouse extension, including a new activity room, change rooms, storage and disabled access. I am working with representatives of the Whitfords Amateur Football Club including Adam Dyer, Kevin Burns and Marcus Thompson, together with local councillor Christine Hamilton-Prime from the City of Joondalup, towards plans to upgrade the amenities for players, storage facilities and lighting at McDonald reserve in Padbury. This will enable more female participation in sport, particularly with the growing participation of women in Australia football. A federal contribution towards the construction of a sheltered bowling green at Sorrento Bowling Club, at Percy Doyle reserve in Duncraig, will permit play in all weather conditions. These are just some of the local sporting projects that I am strongly advocating for in my electorate. Queensland: Floods 85 11:24 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter Queensland's agriculture minister is former Labor senator Mark Furner, so people here know him well. He is a big and robust man. This week I've had a number of conversations with him about the North Queensland floods and the enormity of the carnage. I've been taken by the emotion in Mark's voice and the desperation in his tone. 'I saw more dead livestock than alive,' he told me, after a weekend tour of affected areas. I make that point because it's really difficult for people who haven't been there, or aren't as well informed as we are here, to understand how terrible a tragedy this is. For a big man like Mark Furner to be shaken by it I think should be an indicator to all Australians that this is a really big event, and the enormity of the devastation is something we've rarely seen before. The rain events in Townsville and north-west Queensland have dumped several years worth of rain in just a few short days. Mother Nature doesn't discriminate; the tragedy has fallen equally upon urban and rural areas. Our thoughts and prayers of course are with all of them. But in rural areas the impact extends well beyond the family home and commercial buildings. The carnage there can be seen over large tracts of land—ironically, large tracts of land which, only weeks ago, were suffering from possibly the worst drought in our history. Indeed, the President of AgForce, Georgie Somerset, told me of one landholder who, currently, is in flood at one end of their property and still in drought at the other—such is the cruelty of Mother Nature. The recovery will not be immediate. Field erosion, crop losses and the impact on the herd size, already under stress, are problems that will not be solved in the short term. They will take many years to overcome. So, too, will the biosecurity threats. So the opposition extends its sympathies and best wishes to all those affected by this natural disaster. We stand as one with the Commonwealth government and the state government as they develop a response sufficient to help those in need. And we think of our friends in local government. Our local government leaders will bear a lot of pain and responsibility over the coming weeks and months, and they will do so with limited funds—as is always the case for them. So, as I said in the House on Tuesday, nothing invites bipartisanship like a natural disaster like this and its impact on our people, and we stand with the government, ready to do anything we can to assist. (Time expired) Berowra Electorate: Stronger Communities Program 85 11:27 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra One of the wonderful things about the electorate of Berowra is its extraordinary sense of community spirit. It's a community where people don't sit back and wait for somebody else to fix issues and problems; it's a community of communities—it's a community where people get involved. One of the great indications of the community spirit of Berowra was when, after the recent Berowra hailstorms which devastated every home in Berowra, there was wonderful spontaneous volunteering, where people just came down after their homes were secure and helped their neighbours by sandbagging and by helping our volunteers and our SES. One of the things that the Morrison government has in place to support our local communities is the Stronger Communities Program. It's a program where we in government can encourage local community organisations to carry on the good work that they do and provide them with small grants, and my role in this is to encourage groups to apply. I've established, as all members do, an independent committee to assess the grants. The committee that I have established is chaired by my local resident and a distinguished former member of this House, Chris Miles, the former member for Braddon. This year we have helped a whole range of organisations, from Scouting groups to church groups and from op shops to Lions clubs to Rotary clubs, and from people dealing with people with disabilities to school P&Cs. That, I think, encapsulates the great breadth of the Berowra community in and of itself. The range of projects that we've helped is quite diverse too, from installing better IT equipment to create better internet reception for Warrah in Dural, which is a residential accommodation for people with disability, through to providing new play equipment and sheltered play areas for school P&Cs at Cherrybrook and Beecroft. We've refurbished Scouting kitchen halls, and we've also refurbished Scouting driveways as a result of this. One of the great things about the program, too, is that it is not just a government grant with no strings attached. It actually says to organisations: 'We want you to match the funding. We want you to get involved and raise some of the money yourself, and we will meet you halfway.' So it's a government-community partnership in the best way, which reinforces and strengthens the bond of communities. We've created outdoor learning areas for schools. We created softball back nets on a diamond at the Hornsby District Softball Association. These are just some of the many programs that we're providing and supporting. What has interested me is the number of church groups that are looking for assistance at the moment, particularly with carpet tiles. I think we have three or four different church groups that have looked for funding for carpet tiles, but I think that goes to show how regularly used these church organisations are and, indeed, what a backbone of the Berowra community our 70-odd church and faith groups are. I commend the Stronger Communities Program to the chamber. Shipping Industry 86 11:30 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland Outside of border command, the merchant marine was the arm of the Australian services that lost the most people during World War II. In fact, we lost three iron boats—two off my particular region of the Hunter Valley and Central Coast. Today I met with Ben from Belmont, Daniel from Shoalhaven and Jesse from Caves Beach. Ben and Daniel have joined me in the chamber today. They were sacked by BHP and BlueScope on the MV Mariloula and MV Lowlands Brilliance. They were replaced by workers working for $2 an hour, and what's worse is they were sacked at sea when they entered international waters. Now, BlueScope made a $1.6 billion profit this year. BHP made a $12 billion profit this year and avoids paying tax through their Singapore marketing hub. For these companies, which claim to be pillars of the Australian society—one, in fact, claims to be the 'Big Australian'—to sack Australian workers and replace them with foreign workers on $2 an hour is a disgrace. It is an un-Australian move. It is an act aided and abetted by a Liberal government that has given up supporting Australian workers, if they ever tried to—a government intent on attacking workers. This is a not a temporary trade; moving iron ore around this country to steel smelters is not a temporary trade. It is by definition a permanent and regular trade. It is the same as the attacks on the aluminium trade and the bauxite trade. What is next for this government? Is it replacing truck drivers, because this is the equivalent? When they attack the blue highway, the next logical move is to say: 'We'll replace Australian truck drivers driving Australian registered trucks with foreign workers driving trucks registered in the Philippines.' It is exactly the same logic. You just have to read the government's own legislation and the regulatory impact statement to understand what they're about. The legislation they want to move and get through this parliament brags about sacking 1,000 maritime workers. That is the only cost saving from that policy change. Well, I'm here to say that I and all my Labor colleagues will stand up with the maritime workers. We stand with Jesse, we stand with Ben and we stand with Daniel and the thousands of Australian seafarers who are out of work right now because of the neglect and the angry attitude of this government. We stand for an Australian shipping industry—a shipping industry where Australian-flagged vessels are staffed by Australian crews who are paid Australian wages. That is the right way. When I talk to people in the streets—people who aren't Labor supporters, people who aren't trade unionists—they think it's crazy that we don't have Australian ships crewed by Australians on our trading routes at the moment. It is positively un-Australian. This government likes to talk about national security. Well, they weaken national security by destroying Australian crews and by allowing the sacking of Australian workers, who are being replaced by foreign crews on $2 an hour, carrying vital trade for this nation. Shame, I say, shame! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Before we proceed, if no member present objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes. South Grafton Public School, Page Electorate: Australia Day Awards 86 11:33 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I would like the congratulate the students and families of the South Grafton Public School; its principal, Peter Hickey; and the dedicated teaching staff, in particular Melissa Berry, Melissa McGrath and Janelle Buckley. South Grafton Public School has a wonderful story to tell. Over the last two years, the school has achieved outstanding academic, performing arts and wellbeing results. There are around 2,200 public schools in New South Wales, and South Grafton public was one of only 25 schools in the state and the only one from our region to receive a prestigious recommendation from the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority for its outstanding NAPLAN results in years 3 to 5. The school's focus on literacy and numeracy has seen its NAPLAN growth reach outstanding levels, and the K-3 results rise to the top two per cent in the state. So impressive are the results that the Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation now wants to do a study on how the school has achieved these excellent outcomes. The school has appointed two instructional leaders, Melissa Berry and Melissa McGrath, to support the curriculum leader, Janelle Buckley, to further assist the school executive and teaching staff. South Grafton Public School has also used increased government funding to introduce a range of programs to support the wellbeing of students, including a breakfast club, support with uniforms and help with small excursions to ensure all students can attend. It also runs high-quality debating, public speaking, band, sport, choir and dance programs, with the students regularly winning their categories. With its academic, performing arts and social reputation growing, South Grafton Public School has become the school of choice for many parents and families. I thank Peter Hickey and the teaching staff for their dedication to their students. Congratulations to all the students who have put in the hard work to get such wonderful results. Your achievements align with the school moto: inspiring excellence through pride. We are all very proud of you. I acknowledge and congratulate all the members of my community who received OAMs and Australia Day awards in the Richmond Valley Council LGA. Murray Murdoch of Evans Head was recognised with an OAM for his dedicated service to the wool industry. The Australia Day award winners were Citizen of the Year, Betty Doyle; Young Citizen of the Year, Katelyn Stevenson; Young Sportsperson of the Year, Tallulah Mohammed; Sportsperson of the Year, Callum Robson; Volunteer of the Year, Beverly Lauritzen; and Young Volunteer of the Year, Oliver Mason. Thank you all for your wonderful contributions to our community. Economy 87 11:36 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today to talk about the hypocrisy, writ large, that we are seeing in our federal parliament this week. The government doesn't want to take action against the banks even though the royal commission has clearly shown us the unethical behaviours that have been happening across the last six years. The government wants to tell us that Labor's franking credit policy is somehow something for the community to be frightened of. Let's look at the facts. The franking credit policy proposed by Labor is going to add fairness to this country. Franking credit refunds will soon cost $8 billion every year. That's more than the federal government spends on public schools. It's a loophole that gives taxpayer funded handouts to people who haven't paid income tax. These cash handouts to people who have not paid tax are costing $100 million a week. When I first came here in 2013, the first budget was the 2014 budget. Remember, we had a budget emergency! Australians needed to be lifters, not leaners. We all remember the rhetoric. There were proposals from this government for $100,000 degrees for university students. This government wanted a six-month waiting period for Newstart. The senior supplement was abolished. The mature age worker tax offset was abolished. The seniors health card was harder to qualify for. The dependent spouse tax offset was discontinued. They wanted to raise the age pension to 70. They wanted to introduce a $7 GP visit co-payment, because there was a budget emergency, but they hadn't noticed $8 billion a year that could have been recouped. They wanted to hurt the vulnerable all over this country, but didn't see that saving, which they could have listed in that budget and in subsequent budgets. Labor believes reforming franking credit refunds will make our tax system fairer and raise revenue to be better spent on funding hospitals and schools. It's a choice. The government hasn't even committed beyond 2019 to 15 hours access for kindergarten and, hypocritically, wants to scare older Australians—and pensioners, for whom this has absolutely no impact. Labor wants to make this country a fairer place to live; those opposite don't care. Youth Insearch 87 11:39 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell This week, Youth Insearch launched the Blue Heart social media campaign. For those who are not aware, Youth Insearch is a multi-award-winning charity organisation dedicated to helping young people experiencing low self-esteem and depression. It does so through peer group support programs led by young people who have overcome challenges in the past who act as inspirational role models. Based in my electorate of Mitchell, Youth Insearch has helped over 31,000 youths turn around their lives, including thousands at risk of suicide. For almost 35 years, Youth Insearch has brought young people together to help each other navigate life and reach their full potential. They provide early intervention programs of counselling, support, mentoring and empowerment for at-risk youth in over 100 communities in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. The Blue Heart campaign aims to raise awareness of the prevalence of youth suicide in Australia. It may surprise some to learn that suicide is the leading cause of death in young Australians between 15 and 24 years of age. It accounts for more deaths than car accidents. The number of deaths by youth suicide in Australia currently is at the highest it has been for over a decade. More work needs to be done to reduce this horrifying statistic, and Youth Insearch is doing just that. In 2018 there were over 1,000 attendants in the Youth Insearch program. Of these, 60 per cent were feeling suicidal and 44 per cent had attempted suicide. Thankfully, 75 per cent of those were no longer suicidal after participating in the program, with all receiving the on-going follow-up support that they need. The Youth Insearch Blue Heart campaign is creating awareness to empower young people and those around them to talk about how they are feeling and how they would deal with the issues they face. Therefore, I encourage members of this House and everyone who hears this speech to support this campaign. Together, we can help save the lives of our youth who are most at risk. We want to spread hope, one heart at a time, and we want to help Youth Insearch to raise awareness and to prevent youth suicide. I want to commend Youth Insearch. It's a great organisation. I have dealt with it over many years in the House. The CEO, Heath Ducker, is carrying the torch for a long program that has delivered so much for so many young people. Governments in various incarnations and of various political persuasions have funded Youth Insearch over the last 15 to 20 years. We have seen that federal money, I think, pay an enormous dividend. Small amounts given to this organisation have led to lower youth suicide rates and real stability in at-risk youth and people who were facing the most substantial challenges in their young lives. I commend to all members that they visit the website and look at Youth Insearch's Facebook and Twitter pages and I urge them to help this great organisation and replicate it across the country. There are not too many groups in Australia today that can claim to have helped 31,000 youths over the last few years to turn their lives around, including young people at risk of suicide. It's a great community organisation and I'm very proud to be supporting it as a local member. Schools 88 11:42 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman I'm always proud to come to Canberra and represent the voices of my community. Sometimes, it means I miss out on attending things that I love to attend. It being the start of the year, spending this week and next week in Canberra has meant that I have been unable to attend a number of student leader induction ceremonies at my local schools. So, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the newly appointed student leaders of the schools in my community—schools like Woodford, Jinibara, Narangba, Caboolture East, Morayfield East and Dakabin, of course. These are great local schools that give our kids a great education and prepare them for the world that's ahead. Despite the great work that these schools do, they are being neglected by the Liberal government. Each and every public school in my area is having money ripped out of it by this government. I have been out in the community visiting schools, knocking on doors and calling on locals to hear what they have to say about these millions of dollars of cuts. They are not happy. They are not happy that this government would rather throw money at the top end of town than give a fair go to Australian kids. They are not happy that this government would rather run a protection racquet for the banks than invest in education. They are not happy that this government would rather focus on themselves and this infighting that they are doing than strengthening the public education system of this country. But you know what did make them happy: when I spoke to them and they heard about Labor restoring every single cent that the Liberals have ripped out of their schools. That's what's made them happy. They were happy hearing that Bribie Island State High School will receive $1.5 million more under a Labor government. They were happy to hear that Burpengary State School would receive $860,000 more and that schools like Dakabin State High School—where I was a teacher's aide—would receive $670,000 of additional investment under a Shorten Labor government. That is nothing to be shouting about other than for joy, if you have a child at one of those schools—to have extra investment in our schools. I notice those on that side of the chamber are awfully, awfully quiet right now, Deputy Speaker. Locals just want a fair go; that's why they want to hear about Labor's fair go—a fair go plan for Australian schools, a fair go for their kids. Corangamite Electorate 88 11:45 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite In relation to the previous speaker, it's really regrettable that we continue to see so many lies being told by the Labor Party in relation to education. It's also happening in my electorate. It was with great joy just in the last week that I was able to announce on behalf of the Morrison Liberal government that Epworth Geelong hospital, an incredible investment in our region, has received a new Medicare MRI licence. This is an incredible win for our community for an amazing hospital, and it's the culmination of a very strong community campaign where I worked very closely with the hospital. I'm absolutely delighted and want to thank Greg Hunt, the Minister for Health and member for Flinders, a mighty local member, for the incredible work that he is doing standing up for people right across this country when it comes to delivering record health investment to this country. I want to congratulate everyone at Epworth, and I'm so proud that we have secured this licence, which will make the difference in relation to about 6,000 services, meaning that most MRIs at Epworth will now be bulk-billed—free of charge. The minimum charge applicable before was $275, so this is going to be so important in terms of the life-changing technology that MRI scans provide to our community. It continues a long list of achievements in the Corangamite electorate, and I'm so proud to stand up and fight for the people I represent. I am so proud to be their strong local voice on really important investments that we have delivered—that only the Liberal coalition government has delivered. The upgrade of the Great Ocean Road was an investment that the previous federal Labor government did not support. In fact, they campaigned against it, an absolute disgrace. The Princes Highway duplication was a $183 million investment for the duplication between Colac and Winchelsea. The new international terminal at Avalon Airport is, again, a project that Labor stopped when they were in government but that we are now proudly funding to the tune of $20 million, and that is transformational. Of course, there's more than a quarter of a billion dollars for local rail—and Daniel Andrews needs to get on with his fast rail plan; he's not doing anything, and that's an absolute disgrace. There's $154 million for the Geelong City Deal; money for our local surf clubs and for wonderful organisations like Cottage by the Sea; the regional jobs and investment package of $20 million, driving hundreds and thousands of new jobs in our electorate; and the NBN, with 19 mobile base stations. Standing up for so many communities, like Wye River after the catastrophic bushfires, I'm very proud to be delivering for Corangamite. Queensland: Floods 89 11:48 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert The Prime Minister and the LNP should be hanging their heads in shame at the way the people of Townsville are being treated as a result of a major flood. As I have stated in this place many times, Townsville has experienced the worst floods in our recorded history. Townsville residents' homes, belongings and livelihoods have been destroyed. And, to top this off, the Morrison LNP government is denying many Townsville residents vital assistance. How cruel and stingy does the Prime Minister have to be to deny disaster victims vital assistance at a time when they are at their most distressed? My office has been inundated with calls and emails about the confusion and restrictions that Prime Minister Scott Morrison has placed on the disaster relief funding. Grown men and women in tears—I say shame on this government. I will read an email that I received from Townsville resident Murray from Kirwan. He writes: Our home like many in Townsville has been impacted by the floods. While our damage is nowhere near as great as others, we have been inundated with mould, as well as some water ingress. For the first time in my 65 years I have requested a government payment, and been rewarded by waiting on the phone for 45 minutes while my information is recorded. This is farcical. The request line is only open during business hours. Some of us work and should not be waiting for this length of time during office hours. I have now been told that they will 'call me back'. Of course I do not expect this to happen. If such a benefit is offered the application process should not be as stressful as my experience. And you are absolutely right, Murray: the process shouldn't be stressful and the problem lies squarely with Prime Minister Scott Morrison. And here is another email from another resident, David. His pool has been ruined, and he has mould all through his house. He writes: I have been told I would get a call back from someone that day and did not. I called again this morning and was told that there may be wait times to be called back by a week or maybe longer just to find out if I'm approved or not. Are you able to find out why we are being put on a wait list instead of a decision being made there and then? Obviously due to this constantly happening it's causing long wait periods which makes it hard to come up with the funds to fix the damage and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's annoyed about this. Well, David is right: he is not the only person who was annoyed. There are thousands across Townsville who, like him, are experiencing some waiting times and being denied vital assistance. I visited a family in Robert Street the other day who had been told they were not eligible for any money. There was a blind man in that place. They had nothing. They had an esky with ice and soft drink. They had no food. This is unacceptable. (Time expired) Fisher Electorate 90 11:51 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher In 2019 I am committed to doing even more to listen to the people of Fisher. That's why I'm holding listening posts every Friday morning by roadsides and in parks all over Fisher. It's also why I'm hosting coffee catch-ups in local shopping centres every Tuesday morning and why I'm taking a stall at weekend markets in Kawana, Currimundi, Mooloolaba, Maleny and Landsborough. People in Fisher can find out where I'll be each week by checking my Facebook page. I'm also stepping up my program of community forums and consultations. Already since mid-January, I have held an NBN forum, an NDIS forum and held sessions for my seniors, youth and defence councils. Invitations are going out to my upcoming Fisher construction industry forum and a law and order forum which will provide more opportunities for local residents to provide feedback on some of the critical issues that face us in Fisher. I have many, many more forums planned for 2019. To kick off 2019, however, I wanted to hold a listening post in every town of my electorate, but I also wanted to understand better some of the transport challenges facing my community so I created the Tour de Fisher. In five days I cycled over 200 kilometres on my pushbike and stopped—in lycra—to speak to local residents in 26 different towns around my electorate. I had one-on-one conversations with more than 200 constituents about the issues that matter to them. In every town I visited in lycra there were local projects that residents want—from an upgraded pool for Conondale, new beachside facilities at Currimundi to not wanting to see their federal member in lycra! I'll be looking into these projects and, where possible, I'll be fighting for federal support to make them a reality. But across Tour de Fisher in all of my listening posts this year four issues stood out. Local seniors are absolutely gutted at what Labor plans to do to people who've worked hard all their lives with their unfair and punitive retiree tax. Home owners, renters and the many construction workers in my electorate rightly expressed similar concerns about Labor's disastrous property tax and want to see it stopped. Most residents want to see a stronger diverse coast economy which offers them the great new jobs that they want. Sunshine Coasters are sick and tired of congestion on roads. They want to see construction on the Bruce Highway and the north coast rail fast-tracked, and they want to see action from our helpless and hopeless state government. Finally, I believe very passionately that physical fitness is inextricably linked to mental wellbeing, and that's why I chose to do this ride. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY ( ):  I am sure all members would agree that the member for Fisher has been a busy man. Well done. Mr WALLACE 265967   Thank you. Richmond Electorate: The Nationals 90 11:55 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise to outline yet again how destructive the National Party have been on the New South Wales North Coast. As I've said before, National Party choices hurt. Their harsh choices continue to hurt families and pensioners in regional Australia. All we have ever seen from the National Party on the North Coast is cuts, chaos and neglect. That's it. This sums up their legacy in our region. This is how the National Party will be remembered. On a federal level, we see them responsible for cuts to Medicare, cuts to the age pension, cuts to schools, cuts to hospitals and cuts to penalty rates, which hurt local workers and damage our economy. At every turn, we've also seen cuts from the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments occurring with the full support of the National Party. They support every single cut and they pursue every single agenda that hurts local families and pensioners. Not only do the National Party pursue these unfair policies locally; they also attack and condemn locals who would ever dare to question them. In fact, in one of the cruellest acts I've ever seen, the Nationals candidate in Richmond, Matthew Fraser, showed just how out of touch and arrogant the Nationals are when he posted a Facebook video calling locals 'the great unwashed'. That's right: he called our community 'the great unwashed'. This is despicable. This comment and this video angered and distressed so many locals, who are rightly offended by this gross insult. He made this comment in reference to a rally which included a large group of farmers protesting outside the office of the state Nationals MP Geoff Provest, a person who has betrayed local farmers by destroying their state significant farmland and trying to impose a nine-storey hospital on Cudgen farmland. This despicable statement by the Nationals candidate Matthew Fraser shows exactly what the National Party thinks of our community. I challenge any National Party members to condemn these vile comments and condemn their unhinged candidate. That is what he is—an unhinged candidate. To date, those National Party members haven't condemned him, and their silence is an equal insult to locals. The Nationals have a long list of broken promises and a long list of cuts to frontline services which are hurting our community, particularly the cuts to our vital police, nurses and teachers. What locals tell me on the North Coast is that they don't trust the National Party and they've had enough of their cuts, because you can't trust them with health, hospitals or Medicare. You can't trust them with age pensions or supporting our seniors. You can't trust them with schools, TAFE or university funding. You cannot trust the National Party with any frontline services. You especially cannot trust them with your family's future, and you can't trust the National Party with your vote. Forde Electorate: Sport 91 11:58 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde This time of year is always a terrific time of year because you have the crossover between the seasons of our summer sports of cricket and baseball and our winter sports of football, rugby league, AFL and rugby union. I want to give a shout-out today to the great sporting clubs in my electorate of Forde. I will start with the great cricket clubs Loganholme, Park Ridge, Beenleigh and the Springwood Suns and the Beenleigh Hawks Baseball Club and the terrific efforts they've made over this past season. They've got a few weeks to go yet, but it's an opportune time to give them a shout-out and congratulations for a terrific year. On the flipside of that, I'd like to give a great shout-out to our football code clubs, and the men's, women's and junior teams in those clubs, for their upcoming season. The Logan Lightning FC women's NPL side start their season on Saturday night. To the Logan Lightning, Ormeau, Bethania Rams and Park Ridge Panthers soccer clubs: I wish you all the best for the coming season. I wish all the best also to the rugby league clubs Chambers Flat Mustangs, Waterford Demons, Beenleigh Pride, Beenleigh Juniors, Logan City Hawks and Ormeau Shearers, who will benefit this year from a $500,000 investment by the Commonwealth government through our community infrastructure grants. All the best to the Yatala Rams rugby union club, who will play this year for the first time at their new grounds at Windaroo Valley State High School. I'd like to thank Logan City Council for their terrific support of the Yatala Rams to get these new facilities up and running and also Leonard McKeown, the principal at the Windaroo Valley State High School, for their support and encouragement of the club. All the best to the AFL clubs. The Beenleigh Buffaloes were grand finalists last year but lost to one of my other great clubs, the Park Ridge Pirates. This year is their first season in division 1, and I'm sure that will be a terrific challenge for them. All the best also to the Ormeau Bulldogs AFL club. All of these clubs, each and every year, are run by volunteers and community members for the interest and benefit of the senior men's and women's teams and, importantly, for our junior teams. It's the opportunity for kids in our communities to get out and play sport. There's no better thing for them to do than that, because it gets them away from the TV, the PlayStation and the Xbox and, importantly, teaches them the importance of teamwork, working together with others. You learn to lose. You learn to win gracefully. I think it's critically important. So my best to all the clubs involved, and thank you for your contribution to our great community. ADJOURNMENT 91 ADJOURNMENT Education 91 12:01 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I spoke in this place an hour ago about love. One of the things I love is investing in education, and I also like talking about delivering a fair go for Australia. Every Friday, I start a conversation with my community called Fair Go Friday, where we talk about important policy issues where we want to make sure that Australians are getting a fair go. When it comes to giving a fair go to Australian people, there's nothing more important than investing in education. My mum and dad were both primary school teachers. They continue to work in the education sector, educating and supporting the next generation of teachers to deliver education and enlightenment to young people in Western Australia. My wife, Jess, and I had the benefit of great university educations—hers at the University of Queensland, mine at Curtin University. My son is just coming on to his first year in early childhood education. Early childhood educators do such good, important work in teaching little people how to become good big people. Leo, at the moment, has a stuffed dog that comes home with him at night, and he is learning how to look after that little animal. That is all part of the education process that his early childhood educators have built for him. Also, in speaking on education, I want to commend the Prime Minister for his focus on Indigenous education and making sure that young Indigenous people get all the opportunities that they deserve, wherever they should be in this country. Speaking of education, I once even had the honour of being a guest lecturer at my other old university, the University of Western Australia, along with the member for Canning, delivering guest lectures for Professor Peter van Onselen's class, which was a great honour. Some of the things that have been discussed with me as I've been visiting schools in my electorate over the last week prior to returning to parliament are: 'What's next? What is next going to happen for schools in the electorate of Perth?' I'm pleased to say that Labor has a very clear Fair Go Action Plan when it comes to education. Part of that is our national kindy and preschool program, making sure that some 700,000 Australian children will be able to access subsidised preschool. We've also announced a Swim Smart program, making sure that Australian kids get education in the water. Kids in primary school need to know how to swim, wherever they should be. It's an essential Australian skill. And, speaking of important water education, I'd like to give a shout-out to the people—the staff, the friends, the volunteers—at Maylands Waterland. For some 40 years, that fantastic swimming education facility in my electorate has been standing. It has a bright future. It is also just a great thing to have, where some 40,000 families a year go and learn how to be safe in the water and enjoy all the sun and warmth that is all across Western Australia. I also commend to my electorate Labor's commitment to needs based school funding, restoring some $17 billion to our schools. Our Fair Go for Schools means that, in just the first three years of any future Shorten Labor government, we would invest some $21 million in Perth's schools. Maylands Peninsula Primary School would receive an extra $780,000. Eden Hill Primary School would receive $580,000. Inglewood Primary School, down the road from my electorate office, would receive $620,000 in the first three years under Labor's plans. Amy Blitvich, one of the newest teachers at Mount Lawley Senior High School, would be able to give her students the one-on-one attention and resourcing they need with an extra $2,650,000 for Mount Lawley Senior High School. It is not just at the primary and early years; we also need to invest in our universities. Labor will establish a $300 million university future fund to make sure we can build the research and teaching facilities of the future. We will abolish the cap on student places, meaning Edith Cowan University, in my electorate, can actually give places to the students who are knocking on their door. These students have the grades, but there are just not the places for them to get into university and get the tertiary education they need. That is going to deliver 200,000 more places into our university sector over coming years. We also have to do more about the disgraceful ongoing challenge of sexual assault in our universities. Labor will give a new independent task force strong powers to crack down on sexual harassment and assault at our universities. Page Electorate: Australia Day Awards 92 12:06 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I would like to acknowledge and congratulate members of my electorate who received OAMs, AMs and Australia Day awards. In the Coffs Harbour City Council area Peter Rheinberger received an OAM for his dedication to the Rotary Club of Coffs Harbour and the Glenreagh Mountain Railway Restoration Project. Don Clinch received an OAM for his many years of service to the Woolgoolga community. Pam Fayle was awarded Member of the Order of Australia for her contribution to the Department of Foreign Affairs as Ambassador to Germany, Switzerland and Lichtenstein, as well as being a board member of the Australian Trade Commission and far too many local organisations to mention. Congratulations to Isabella Oates Herrera, from Woolgoolga, who was named the Coffs Harbour City Council's Young Achiever of the Year. She was awarded this in recognition of her role as a mentor at Woolgoolga High School and her outstanding team spirit, shown by her selection in the Woolgoolga District Netball Association team and the New South Wales Netball representative team. My congratulations to you all. I would like to acknowledge and congratulate those in the Clarence Valley Council area who received OAMs and Australia Day awards. Pat Connelly, from Grafton, was recognised with an OAM for his outstanding support of Grafton hockey over many decades, as well as his involvement with the youth suicide prevention program. John Stone was acknowledged with an OAM for his continued support of organisation such as Lions, North Coast Housing and the Grafton Rifle Club. I thank the husband and wife team of Harry and Marcia Le Busque, who received an Australian Fire Service Medal for their 30 years of service to the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. The Australia Day Award winners in the Clarence Valley were: Citizen of the Year, Susan Howland; Young Citizen of the Year, Brad Chapman; and Community Achievement Award, Pelican Playhouse. The Local Hero Award was shared by two recipients: Don Frame, for his contribution to the Copmanhurst Saddlery Museum, and George Pringle, for his ongoing commitment to keeping the Cowper Bus Memorial Park in pristine condition. Congratulations to you all. It was a wonderful event to be at. I would like to acknowledge and congratulate those who received OAMs, OAs and Australia Day awards at the Lismore City Council Australia Day Awards. Father Paul Pidcock was awarded an OAM for his many decades of service to the community and to the Catholic Church. Dr Valerie Atkinson, from Goolmangar, was awarded Officer of the Order of Australia for her continued dedication to the Indigenous community and mental health. The Australia Day Awards winners were: Citizen of the Year, Allison Kelly; Young Citizen of the Year, Lily Harrison; Aboriginal Citizen of the Year, Malachi Canning; Senior Sports Person of the Year, Paul Leadbeater; Junior Sports Person of the Year, Matilda Elliott; Sports Team of the Year, Lismore Swans women's AFL team; Services in the Community Award (Individual), John Maloney; and Services in the Community Award (Group), the 1979 Terania Forest blockaders. Ted Trudgeon won an award for art and culture, while Vivian Martin was recognised for her commitment to a sustainable environment. Congratulations to you all. It was a wonderful event to be at. I'd like to acknowledge those who received Australia Day awards in Kyogle and district areas. The winners were: Citizen of the Year, Margaret Armstrong; Senior Citizen of the Year, Jack McDonough; Senior Student of the Year, Eliza Williams; Junior Citizen of the Year, Felicity Duley; Senior Sportsperson of the Year, Dean Ferris; and Junior Sportsperson of the Year, Ziah Piggot. In Bonalbo, the West of Range Citizen of the Year was awarded to Jeanette Flanagan, the Senior Citizen of the Year to Yvonne Gay, the Sportsperson of the Year to Matthew Avery and the Young Citizen of the Year was awarded to Leroy Gilroy. Business of the Year went to the Bonalbo post office, and congratulations to Mike Whittaker and Andrea Harvey. The community event category went to the Tabulam hall Medieval Festival. Congratulations to Lynda Shearing and all of the volunteers. In Woodenbong, Margaret Martin was named Citizen of the Year. Taking out the best community organisation award was the Woodenbong craft group, led by Christine Reid, and the business and services award was won by the Woodenbong Hotel. Congratulations to Tony. My congratulations to all the winners for 2019. At the Ballina council's Australia Day awards recently, Finn Ball of Alstonville, from my electorate, was named the Young Citizen of the Year. For the last few years, Finn has volunteered at the Alstonville Plateau Historical Society, and last year he was named the Lions regional Youth of the Year. Finn is a wonderful ambassador in our community, and I congratulate him on being Young Citizen of the Year. Solomon Electorate: Community Events, Defence Procurement, Bombing of Darwin: 77th Anniversary 93 12:11 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Last weekend, the Defence Community Organisation ran a fantastic event, another 'welcome to Darwin' or 'welcome to the Top End' gathering at the Darwin Convention Centre. It was fantastic, so congratulations again to DCO. It was a really successful event and was really well attended. For me, it was great to get some valuable feedback from Defence families, both those who have been here for a time or those who have just been posted in at the start of the year. It was great that those families could walk around and visit all the exhibitions from every sector of society and get the local information that they need to make their start in the Top End a lot more successful. It was a really great event, and I was really heartened by the positive reception that the new boots policy that Labor has announced got from the members of the Defence forces with whom I spoke. I know myself, from doing a fair bit of stomping in general purpose boots, that one size doesn't fit all. For a few soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen, the issued boots they get will fit them spot-on. But, for many others, they go and buy their own boots. We don't think that's appropriate, so it was great to talk about the new policy we've announced where there'll be a range of boots that ADF members will be able to choose from but the system will pay for that very important piece of kit, because boots are very important for members of the ADF in doing their job well. I believe that, when members have the boots they need to do their job, it will save us a lot of injuries as well. Keeping on the military theme, this coming Tuesday is another commemoration—this one, the 77th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin. This has become a national day of significance, and it is because it was the first time that Darwin and the mainland came under direct attack in World War II. One hundred and eighty-eight attack aircraft were launched from aircraft carriers. There were 54 land based bombers in the second raid. All up, over 260 enemy aircraft were involved, which killed at least 252 Allied service personnel and civilians. The big civilian toll is something that I'm keenly aware of and remember each year. Unfortunately, due to our sitting here in this place next week, I won't be able to attend the memorials and the commemorations, but I will pay my respects when I return to Darwin. We'll have the ceremony at the USS Peary memorial in the morning, before moving down to the Darwin cenotaph where we'll remember that, just before 10 o'clock on 19 February 1942, the sirens rang out. There is also a ceremony down at Stokes Hill Wharf, where the Maritime Union of Australia and others will commemorate all those seafarers and waterside workers who were killed when the bombs rained down on Stokes Hill Wharf that morning. We have a significant defence history in the north, and in Darwin in particular, and this year the Northern Territory government has launched Territory Tribute, a range of events starting on 19 February and going through to Anzac Day. This great series of events will reflect on the involvement of the Australian military, Indigenous Australians and our neighbours in South-East Asia, with participation from the US and Japan—an inclusive, respectful and truthful reflection of our wartime history. There will be a couple of showpieces, which I will quickly mention: the International Veterans Art Exhibition—and well done to ANVAM—the Military Writers' Festival from 5 to 7 April; and also an event called Overture to Peace, which will be on the eve of Anzac Day. These are fantastic events in our Territory Tribute. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 I thank the member for Solomon. It's always good to hear about Darwin. Bennelong Electorate: Community Events 94 12:16 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I would like to update the parliament on a couple of events that have happened in Bennelong recently. This fortnight, I've been fortunate enough to participate in the local Lunar New Year festivities in Bennelong. This year will mark the vivid return of the Eastwood Lunar New Year celebrations. For over 10 years, our community has enjoyed the festivities of the Eastwood Lunar New Year celebrations, coming together to share in music, dance and merriment. It's an event that is reflective of and celebrates our strong, diverse and vibrant multicultural community. Today, Eastwood is often described as a microcosm of multicultural change in Australia, and is home to a thriving Asian community of Chinese, Korean, Indian and Sri Lankan immigrants. Nearly 40 per cent of residents have Chinese ancestry, and over 64 per cent of residents speak a language other than English at home. For me, Eastwood is a true representation of Australian ideals of multiculturalism, and I am proud of this contribution made by all for us to come together. This year's celebrations have been especially exciting as we come together to celebrate the Year of the Pig, the 12th and final sign of the Chinese zodiac. Those born in the Year of the Pig are considered to be happy, easygoing, honest and sincere, and, in ancient times, a house was only considered a home if it included a rotund pig—a symbol of great happiness and abundance. Last week I was joined by many local people, my local state colleague Victor Dominello and a small pride of lions to bring to the celebrations. Great thanks go to Hugh Lee OAM and Dr Anthony Ching for organising the event. Last week, Eastwood also saw a visit from a very special guest, as the Prime Minister joined local dignitaries to celebrate the Lunar New Year at one of our many excellent local restaurants. Members of both the Chinese and the Korean communities were represented, and a great time was had by all. This weekend, the local celebrations will culminate in the grand event at Eastwood Oval. There will be a spectacular dragon and lion dance of red and gold, which brings good luck and fortune upon the community members. The dance represents the festivity of all of those celebrating, and it reflects the rich and diverse culture we have in Bennelong. Another special moment will be the appearance of Peppa Pig, which I'm sure will be a big hit with the many families, especially the kids, who will join in the celebrations. After a day full of joy and harmony, the celebrations will end with a fantastic display of fireworks officially welcoming in the new year. I hope the Year of the Pig brings our community great happiness, prosperity and good health. Kung hei fat choy! At the other side of the electorate, a fight has been underway to save the Macquarie Centre's iconic ice rink. It was with disappointment that I received news of AMP's proposed plan to demolish Macquarie's ice rink. The ice rink has been a much loved part of our community for tens of thousands of adults and children who have skated there for nearly 40 years. It has been a playground for those who love to skate and has facilitated all levels of skating from recreational up to Olympic competitors such as gold medallist Steven Bradbury and Monica MacDonald, a seven-time Australian national champion in figure skating, who has joined the effort to stop the redevelopment plan. It would be very sad to see the ice rink lost to the Macquarie Centre redevelopment. Not only would this deprive our community of a great asset but it would also be responsible for dozens of job losses affecting our locals. I am proud to see the way the community has rallied together to save this landmark. There has been an overwhelmingly strong response from tens of thousands of local residents who have signed petitions to save this iconic destination. In addition I was glad to hear that, thanks to the efforts of the Hon. Victor Dominello, state MP for Ryde, AMP has agreed to pause their application and allow further community consultation. I'm hopeful that this consultation will result in a positive outcome and help the people of Bennelong protect this great staple of our community. I congratulate Victor and all of the community, who have rallied together to save our ice rink. Fremantle Electorate: Infrastructure 95 12:21 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Today, Infrastructure Australia has issued its 2019 priority list, and I'm glad that two projects on that list are important and relevant to the community I represent, the federal electorate of Fremantle, for reducing congestion and supporting both passenger and freight transport needs. The first of these is the Armadale Road to North Lake Road Bridge at Cockburn Central in my electorate. It's one of the fastest-growing local government areas in Australia. There has been extraordinary residential growth, catalysed by the visionary move by Labor governments to put in place a hard rail line between Perth and Mandurah. It was supported by the previous Labor government through a number of initiatives, including a GP super clinic and other kinds of community infrastructure, but it is a victim of its own success. The fact that there are so many people there and the facilities are so good, including the Cockburn ARC, which the previous Labor government supported to the tune of $10 million, has meant that there is a congestion issue. I'm glad to see that the Armadale Road to North Lake Road Bridge remains a priority project according to Infrastructure Australia. I'm more glad that the Western Australian government is committed to delivering the project. We will see the duplication of Armadale Road on the eastern side of the freeway and, on the eastern side of Coburn Central, the building of the new North Lake Road Bridge, which will mean two streams of traffic moving east-west: those going due west on Beeliar Drive and those going north-west on North Lake Road. That project was a commitment of mine when I was first elected in 2016. It is being funded, and that is a great thing. The second project I want to mention is the new Fremantle Traffic Bridge. It has gone onto the Infrastructure Australia priority list, and it's a very important project, as a cross-river link. Addressing the issue with the existing bridge has both road and rail implications. The bridge was first built in 1939. It is substantially a timber bridge and it is past its use-by date. Infrastructure Australia acknowledged that something needs to be done to address the condition of the bridge, which some time in the next five years will not be fit for purpose. It is past time to see a new bridge. The Gallop-Carpenter WA government had $80 million in the state budget some time ago to address this pressing need. Unfortunately, that funding was removed by the Barnett Liberal government between 2008 and 2017, so the project has not been advanced. Something needs to be done. IA makes it very clear that the bridge will quite possibly cease to be operational in five or so years if something isn't done. By replacing that bridge, you get multiple benefits. First of all, you get a proper 21st-century traffic bridge at a vital point across the Swan River—or Derbarl Yerrigan as it's known to the Wajuk Noongar people of Walyalup, as Fremantle is now known—but it has an added advantage: if you create a new bridge, in addition to the traffic capacity, you could also introduce a new pair of rail lines. Currently the pair of rail lines are conflicted during the day because the passenger rail use has to be prioritised, and that means that the freight rail use really has a tiny window in which to work. So, by creating a new Fremantle traffic bridge and getting two new rail lines, you would, logically, create additional freight rail capacity. Not only can you get more freight on rail, not only can you take more trucks off our roads but you'd actually have much greater flexibility in the way that you arrange that transport. That means that you don't necessarily have to have freight rail concentrated during the night as you currently do. The freight rail line passes through Fremantle. A lot of people in my electorate like to see freight on rail but, if it means squealing trains at all hours of the night, that comes with amenity impacts. A new freight rail line would alleviate that. I welcome IA's step today. I look forward to the Commonwealth supporting that bridge and I look forward to the old traffic bridge being used in future as a proper community link for active transport, bikes, walking, festivals, night markets and all those kinds of things. Bonner, Mr Neville, AO 95 12:26 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane This month we mark 20 years since the death of the late Neville Bonner, AO, and former Australian senator. He was Australia's first Indigenous federal parliamentarian—indeed, Queensland's first Indigenous parliamentarian at any level of government. Many senators never really enter into the public consciousness, but Neville Bonner broke all the moulds. And by being fiercely independent, true to his values and incredibly down-to-earth, he became a very identifiable and hugely popular figure across party lines. On his death in 1999, The Courier-Mail wrote that he became 'one of the best known of Australia's politicians, listened to by the broader community'. Neville Bonner had that amazing inclusive style of representation, and an unwavering commitment to the cause of diversity, and for this reason he remains a real role model for so many of us that follow in his footsteps. At a time when Indigenous rights were heavily debated and racial tensions were often greatly contested, Neville Bonner was sworn into the Australian Senate on 17 August 1971. The traditional custodians of the Brisbane area are the Yugara and Turrubul people. Neville Bonner's arrival in the Australian Senate was a momentous occasion for an Aboriginal man and a Yugara elder. In many ways, he was a representative not just for Queensland but for all Australians, and particularly for Indigenous Australians. Neville Bonner represented his constituents with both grace and pride. He was a deeply empathetic man who'd overcome great hardship and discrimination in his own early life and was conscious of the need to stand up on behalf of those who he described as being 'at the bottom of the ladder'. Yet he never allowed himself to be shackled by his personal adversity and disadvantages, and in this way he was an inspiration to many. As Kim Beazley said in his condolence speech in February 1999: There is no person who's come into this chamber who's lived as hard a youth as Neville Bonner—none. The only formal education Neville Bonner ever received was the completion of third grade at Beaudesert State School. This would lead him in his maiden speech to say he felt overawed by the obvious education of other honourable senators within that august chamber. He continued by remarking: I assure honourable senators that I have not attended university or a high school and, for that matter, I do not know that I can say I have spent very much time at a primary school. But this does not mean that as a senator from Queensland I am not able to cope. I have graduated through the university of hard knocks. My teacher was experience. Throughout his Senate career, he worked towards bettering the lives of the disadvantaged, even when this drew him into conflict with members of his own party. He had the courage of his convictions, crossing the floor many times on issues like Indigenous justice, pensioners, the environment, the elderly and East Timor. And, in keeping with his understated and humble style, Neville Bonner believed his greatest achievement was, quite simply, the fact that he was there in parliament, that an Aboriginal man was there. Yet, such an assessment does not begin to do true justice to his achievements and his impact. At Neville Bonner's funeral, his grandson said that Neville would not have been comfortable with the praise that has been given to him since his passing. Neville once said that he would like to be remembered as a good man who tried his best and did his best. He was much more interested in achieving practical outcomes than in enacting merely symbolic gestures. It was Sir Jim Killen, his good friend and fellow prominent Liberal at the time, who, in delivering the eulogy at Neville Bonner's funeral, reflected that he had spent his whole life, 'Building a bridge over hostility to concord, that it was never easy and he found himself sometimes in a state of despair. But no matter what the disappointment, setbacks or criticism, he never used the word 'hate'. He was a man gifted with grace.' In 1979, Neville Bonner was awarded Australian of the Year. In 1984, he was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia. The Queensland federal electorate of Bonner is named after him, as a tribute. We owe Neville Bonner a huge debt of gratitude for everything that he had achieved. He truly was a great Australian. Asylum Seekers 96 12:31 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton As we are about 90-odd days out from the election, I have noticed in the last 24 hours or so an increase in hysteria, a lot of hyperventilating from those opposite—from the government, from the immigration minister and from the home affairs minister—about some legislation, passed by a majority in the Australian parliament, dealing with helping sick people under our care to receive treatment. I know that this hysteria is going to ramp up in the lead-up to the election. I know that the Prime Minister, a former immigration minister, sees this as an opportunity to create fear, division and hysteria in our community. However, I stand with the Leader of the Opposition and the rest of the Labor Party in knowing that this nation is defined by its values just as much as it is defined by its borders. I know that we have a vision for a fairer Australia. As Robert Browning said: Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for? I understand that the Labor Party has always been a progressive voice. On this particular occasion, we realise that there are people who have been in our care, some for six or seven years. Here we are with the coalition halfway through its sixth year of government and it still hasn't dealt with people in its care. I know that under Prime Ministers Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison nearly 600 people have been granted medical transfers over the last six years. That was under Immigration Minister Morrison and Immigration Minister Dutton. Did these arrivals dismantle our border protection system? If they did, why didn't the Prime Minister, whoever that was, tell us about it? And what about the nearly 100 people a day, if you average it out, who arrive by plane and then seek asylum in Australia under this coalition government? For that matter, they talk about the million jobs they have created, but they forget to mention that nearly 500,000 of those jobs have gone to foreigners. The Prime Minister, who is out front of this fear campaign at the moment, holds a welcoming hand out to some, while he's happy to wave around in his other hand a 'fear of foreigners' placard—that old trick that's been around for thousands of years. Such rank hypocrisy is on display and I think that is one of the reasons why so many Australians are sick of their politicians—sick of the hypocrisy. I commend the Leader of the Opposition for having the courage to do the right thing by people who are sick and in trouble. But what do we see from those opposite? Both of the coalition immigration ministers that I have mentioned—the current and the former—have been derelict in their duty to settle people who are in the processing centres in Nauru and Manus. As I said, they're now halfway through their sixth year in office and they have not resettled people who arrived here by vessel after that key date on which the Labor Party, under Kevin Rudd, changed the policy—the date of 19 July 2013—when anybody arriving by maritime vessel after that time would not be settled in Australia. I do remember, though, the member for Cook's disastrous $50 million Cambodian experiment: they stood there clinking champagne glasses and washing away $50 million—all that taxpayer money—for, basically, no result. Politicians come to this place for one purpose, and that is to serve the Australian people. That is the reason we are in this place. Nearly every politician that I have met here, I used to be able to say, is here for that; they might have had different values, or a different political party, but they were all here to look after the Australian people. But from those opposite we see a strange devotion to cutting corporate taxes. It borders on religious zealotry, almost. And we see Liberals devoted to looking after the top end of town but forgetting the middle Australians—the working Australians—and those who are doing it tough. We see parliamentary committees co-opted to sell financial products and enrich individual MPs. We see MPs hawking businesses on their taxpayer-funded websites that enrich them individually rather than serve the nation. We see jobs handed out to girlfriends and taxpayer funds used towards trips for sordid liaisons. Things need to change. Family values and service used to be a way of life for the Liberals and Nationals. And now, under this former advertising guide, these are mere words being trotted out. They sound good but mean nothing. Things need to change. Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry 97 12:36 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay As one of the National Party members who helped bring about the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, I sincerely thank the commissioner, Justice Kenneth Hayne, for his work. The Hayne royal commission was comprehensive, conducting seven rounds of public hearings over 68 days, calling more than 130 witnesses, and reviewing more than 10,000 submissions. The royal commission's final report has provided us with a forensic examination of Australia's financial system. It's important to acknowledge the significant steps and reforms the Liberal-National government made prior to the royal commission being established. These reforms include the Banking Executive Accountability Regime and the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. These reforms are important, and the work of the royal commission will uphold them both. I welcome the government's commitment to take action on all 76 recommendations of the Hayne royal commission. I also acknowledge that in a number of these areas the government has gone further, establishing a new compensation scheme of last resort and extending the remit of the AFCA so that it is able to review claims going back 10 years and award compensation for successful claims. This is consistent with the period that was examined by the Hayne royal commission. The government is making arrangements to compensate those individuals who had a prior unpaid determination in their favour made by the predecessor bodies of the AFCA. This will provide around $30 million to compensate around 300 customers who were victims of misconduct. We are extending the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to examine corporate criminal misconduct, in order to expedite cases that are considered by state courts and can take over two years to be heard. The government's undertaking a capability review of the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority, APRA, and will conduct further capability reviews every four years. The royal commission's recommendations and our government's response protect the interests of consumers in four key ways: by strengthening and expanding protections for consumers, small business, and rural and remote communities; by raising accountability and governance standards; by enhancing the effectiveness of regulators; and by making remedies available for people harmed by misconduct. I would like to turn now to the very important matter of mortgage brokers. In relation to the mortgage broking sector, the government has said that it will introduce a best interest duty and ban trailing commissions and volume-based bonuses on new loans from 1 July 2020. The government has also committed to conducting a review into the implications of moving to a 'borrower pays' remuneration structure in three years. While the government has made these commitments, I also acknowledge the Productivity Commission's concern about a borrower-pays model: … the cost to competition would be high. Consumers would desert brokers, and smaller lenders … would suffer much more than larger lenders, if customers were required to pay for broker advice. Mortgage brokers are a vital part of our financial industry, helping consumers to navigate the complex maze of mortgage products and helping them to select the right loan with the right payments and the right conditions to suit their circumstances. There are 16,000 mortgage brokers across Australia, who employ 27,000 Australians. More than 50 per cent of all of the residential mortgages are settled by a mortgage broker, providing vital competition for the four big banks. I've been contacted by some of the mortgage brokers in Wide Bay, and I'll be meeting with them after this week's parliamentary sitting to listen to their concerns and—as I always do—act on them. Finally, when it comes to tightening up the banking industry, Labor has nowhere to hide. Over the six years it was in government, Labor had the chance to bring about a royal commission into the banks and failed miserably. Likewise, Bill Shorten was Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation— (Time expired) Shipping Industry, Workplace Relations 98 12:41 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham I want to take the opportunity in this House today to put on the record, for members and for the general public, two important battles going on in my electorate, to which my Labor colleague the member for Whitlam and I have been able to provide some support, together with our state Labor colleagues Ryan Park, the member for Keira; Paul Scully, the member for Wollongong; and Anna Watson, the member for Shellharbour. We have, playing out locally, two disputes that encapsulate exactly the challenges that ordinary workers and their families are facing across the country. I'm very pleased to be joined by some constituents in the Chamber today and to be able to talk about the fight that they've got on their hands. I want to first of all go to the decision by BHP and BlueScope to abandon Australian crews and shipping on the run around the Australian coast from Western Australia to the port in my own area, Port Kembla. We've had a long history—over a hundred years—of ships carrying iron on the Australian coastline to provide for our steel industry, and we all know very well from our history the importance of our maritime fleet at times of great struggle, indeed world wars, in this country. This country needs, for its own best interests, an Australian fleet on our domestic runs. I have met with workers from two ships—the Lowlands Brilliance and the Mariloula—who, while in international waters, were told that their run had been cancelled, that their employment had been cut and that they would be sent home—some of them with years and years of experience as seafarers, others new to the job, told out in the middle of the ocean that their job was gone. This is a disgrace on so many levels. It's a disgrace for those individuals and their families to have their work pulled out from under them in that manner, where they don't have access to their union reps or to people to support them to deal with that sort of outcome. It's also a real disgrace for us as a nation that a significant employer, indeed one whose initials say it's about 'the big Australian', abandons Australian shipping and Australian workers. Indeed, we know all too well from the report Ships of shame, which was a bipartisan report of this parliament, about the abuse of foreign seafarers and what that will now open up to. I want to acknowledge the Maritime Union officials Garry Keane, Mick Cross and Mich-Elle Myers for the work they've done on this campaign and also the sacked workers, particularly those here with us today—Daniel Bell, who was on the Lowlands Brillianceand comes from Nowra, and Ben Sirasch, who was on the Mariloula, and partner Erin, who are from the Gold Coast. I also acknowledge their colleagues John Liebrand, Will Zisis and Daniel Hicks. I call on the government to have a close look at the action it could have taken in not providing licences for foreign-flagged, foreign-crewed ships to do domestic runs. I think it's something that in the long run, as a nation, we need to get on top of. Certainly our shadow minister Anthony Albanese has made it clear that Labor believe that we need to have a domestic fleet. I also want to talk about the Port Kembla Coal Terminal. I have met with the united mineworkers' union representatives Bob Timbs and Lee Webb; the workers on the picket line out the front of the coal terminal; here today, David Brown, Geoff Logan, Kevin Cope and Chris Milevski; and also some workers who are still back either locked out or on strike in my local area who yesterday, while some of their colleagues were here in Canberra, were actually out repairing playground equipment in Dapto, using their time while they were on strike to help a local community: Ben Burns, Owen Steep, Cameron Green and Peter Hawke. These workers just want kept in their enterprise agreement a guarantee of security that they can't be sacked and replaced by contractors. PKCT claim that that's their intention. Well, get back to the table and put that back into that agreement so these workers and their families have an assurance of security for the future. (Time expired) Fairfax Electorate 99 12:46 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I confess to being concerned at times about an erosion of what we sometimes refer to as civil society. We see a breakdown in the family unit. We see a drop in spirituality among most Australians at the moment. We see traditional community groups lacking the volunteers to continue. Volunteering in Australia is wonderful, but demand is exceeding supply. And it's easy to get down, believing that our civil society is eroding and people are going to fall through the cracks and wondering what's going to happen. But there are also times when I think each of us who is honoured to represent local communities gets that inspiration from their own community; I know I do on the Sunshine Coast. Let me use three examples today, one based on a town where people are getting together geographically; another one based on where people are unleashing their talents, particularly through sport; and then, thirdly, an example of social inclusion, where people are coming together. When it comes to a community working as one in a town, I use the example of a project called Reimagine Nambour. Reimagine Nambour is an activity now owned by the community of Nambour, on the Sunshine Coast, where they are working as a united force to paint a vision for their future and then to formulate a road map to get to that vision. They're doing so with the community, the political sector, the business sector and residents working as one because they believe that their town can be transitioned economically while maintaining a very proud and strong distinct identity. Nambour will pull that off because it is working as a united force, and that is Reimagine Nambour. Secondly, I want to use the example of people who unleash their talents, particularly in sport. I recently attended the 25th annual Sunshine Coast Sports Awards, and there is no doubt that the depth of sporting talent on the Sunshine Coast is second to none. It starts at the grassroots. That's where it's at. I want to pay tribute to local legend—in fact, an Olympian—Benny Pike, who has recently stood down as Chairman of the Sunshine Coast Sports Federation. Benny has put his heart and soul into helping people in sport, and he should take a bow because he's done everyone proud. He wears it on his sleeve. A big congratulations to Benny. While I'm talking about sport, let me also mention the emergence of women in sport. My electorate is home to the Lightning on the Sunshine Coast. I'm pretty proud of our track record—and we want three years running, by the way! Again looking at grassroots sport: recently, I was very proud to announce federal funding for the Maroochydore Swans. Some would wonder, 'Is he talking about the Swans Rugby or the Swans football/soccer?' Well, both, actually, because the federal government has extended grants to improve the changing rooms and facilities so that the women who are playing rugby and footy can actually have the dignity of their own changing rooms. It is so important that we support women in sport. Lastly, I want to pay tribute to the Coolum Women's Shed. That's right: not the Coolum Men's Shed—which is going great guns, by the way—but the Coolum Women's Shed. It's now underway. They had their opening day just last weekend, with hundreds of women walking through the door. This is yet again an example of how the local community are coming together with local leadership. Social inclusion and friendships—those are what's holding our civil society together. Full credit to them. Asylum Seekers 99 12:51 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair For too long, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has failed to ensure that vulnerable people in regional processing centres receive timely and adequate medical care. Labor has always been committed to ensuring that sick people get the medical care they need without compromising our strong border protection arrangements. This week, parliament rose to the occasion and addressed these matters in a grown-up and rational way. We addressed this government's failure, especially the ad hoc medical transfer process for sick people in Australia's care. The legislation we passed means that the government must now listen to the advice of doctors. It means that sick refugees and asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island should be evacuated to Australia for temporary medical care when recommended. And it means that the minister retains discretion, to keep Australia and Australians safe. Labor made important amendments to strengthen the successful bill. We enhanced the security requirements, meaning that the minister will be able to deny a transfer on national security grounds and in cases of serious criminality. Secondly, we extended the time frames to refuse a transfer, to make the process more workable and flexible. Thirdly, and most importantly, we ensured that this legislation only applies to the fixed number of people who are already in regional processing. This removes any incentive, no matter how small, for people to risk their lives at sea. I thank the crossbench. I thank the member for Wentworth for her dedication, and her colleagues for their hard work during these long negotiations. The Liberals have been shameless—utterly shameless—in claiming the medical transfer legislation would start the boats again. Labor is committed to ensuring that people smugglers can never prey on vulnerable people ever again. We believe in turn backs when safe to do so, offshore processing and regional resettlement. By claiming otherwise, the Prime Minister has turned into a walking, talking billboard for people smugglers. He is doing the marketing for them. He should be ashamed of himself. Let's not forget that, if the member for Dickson was capable of doing his job and negotiating other third-country resettlement options, vulnerable people would not be languishing in indefinite detention and requiring medical transfers. Labor, if elected, will continue the US refugee resettlement arrangement. We will accept New Zealand's generous offer to resettle refugees, with appropriate conditions. And we will negotiate other third-country resettlement options. Regrettably, the Prime Minister has led the way when it comes to ridiculous scaremongering. He is a Prime Minister who has always tried to play politics with this issue. He has used every opportunity to spread fear. The Prime Minister is the prime advertiser for people smugglers. In 2011, shamefully, he blocked the Malaysia solution, which would have stopped the boats. After he did so, 600 people died at sea. Before the Wentworth by-election, the Prime Minister said he would accept New Zealand's offer to resettle refugees from Manus and Nauru, and when Labor came to the party he reneged on his offer, after losing the Wentworth by-election. Then, yesterday, he made a ridiculous decision to reopen the Christmas Island detention centre. This was a hysterical and unhinged response from a desperate and dishonest Prime Minister. He knows that the legislation that passed parliament will not restart the boats. This is because it only applies to the current cohort on Manus and Nauru. The Prime Minister is focused on one task: encouraging people smugglers to restart the boats. Labor's message is clear: if you try to make it to Australia by boat, you'll be turned around; you'll never settle in Australia. There is no difference between Labor and Liberal when it comes to Australia's border protection regime. Under Labor, there'll be no change to Operation Sovereign Borders. We will turn back boats. Offshore processing will continue, as will regional resettlement. Operation Sovereign Borders will be fully resourced, funded and staff. We will maintain Australia's strong border protection measures and strengthen them even further. Labor is committed to new measures to stop people smugglers in their tracks. We announced, for example, the tripling of the number of Australian Federal Police officers overseas dedicated to deterring and disrupting people-smuggling ventures. We believe in strong border protection, and the government is lying shamefully. Flynn Electorate: Economy 100 12:56 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I've spent my life supporting jobs in my electorate—firstly as a field distributor, then as a publican and a business owner. I have continued to create and support jobs since I was elected in 2010, and I remain the only candidate in Flynn with a plan to create new jobs in Central Queensland. Flynn is an enormous seat that has very many products and commodities for sale, whether it be coal, aluminium, cement or agricultural products. But I don't just focus on the big centres, because I know how important it is to support and create jobs and better infrastructure in all corners of my electorate. Since 2010, I've worked hard to get hundreds of millions of dollars in new health and education services, roads, bridges, business support and water infrastructure. This has included new training centres at the Gladstone High School, and there are other projects, including a new MRI service for Gladstone; a $60 million jobs package under the RJIP; fixing the notorious Kinkora roundabout; making sure the aluminium sector is exempt from the Renewable Energy Target, the old RET; fixing the Gregory Highway between Springsure and Clermont; delivering the funding to build Rookwood weir, which will create 2,000 jobs in construction, and there are many more with agriculture interests after that; the CQ inland port at Emerald, transforming the central highlands into a logistics hub; and the bridge renewal program. The Bundaberg North and South Burnett shires have benefited from this bridge replacement program. All of these are going to make life better and support hardworking business owners who employ a lot of people in their different sectors. We all know Labor's track record when it comes to governing, and I will quote it: not one mobile tower was built under Labor between 2007 and 2013, not one; higher taxes; and the cutting of services to regional areas. Just recently announced was the closure of the Emerald Agricultural College, established in 1972. Since then it has put through thousands of trainees. It is a vital part of the agriculture industry. Likewise, Longreach Pastoral College has been given the thumbs down by the state government and is about to close, at the end of this year. These are services that the bush does not need to have closed, but Labor do it to appease their Greens mates. Shutting down the coal industry is imminent, and I'm fighting tooth and nail every day, along with my colleagues in Central Queensland and North Queensland, to keep the coal industry going. Mining adds something like $250 billion to the Australian economy, and they just want to thumb their noses at it. That's not on. Labor have put a target on our backs. A 45 per cent emissions reduction target and a 50 per cent renewables target will see the coal industry disappear and very quickly. This all amounts to a carbon tax, which I'm vehemently opposed to. It will affect your grocery bills, your power bills, your jobs. There's no doubt about that. Their position on coal is clear. They will not allow new coal-fired power stations. They will not allow upgrading of existing coal-fired power stations in Queensland. We have eight power stations, seven owned by the state government. I don't see many employee car parks outside a solar farm or a wind farm. They don't exist. An honourable member: Because they're not there; there are no jobs. Mr O'DOWD 139441 They're not there. To transition from coal to the renewables, there are no jobs. The jobs that are created are in China and Europe, where the wind turbines and solar panels are made. That's where the jobs are, but, sadly, nothing for Central Queensland. With Gladstone— (Time expired) Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 13 : 01