2019-04-02 45 1 8 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 2 April 2019

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

 

STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 1 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Commonwealth Day 1 12:01 The SPEAKER 00APG Members, I take this opportunity to note that, on 11 March, Australia joined 52 other countries around the world in celebrating Commonwealth Day. Since 1977, Commonwealth Day has been celebrated annually on the second Monday in March. Commonwealth Day highlights the far-reaching and deep-rooted networks of friendships and goodwill that exist between Commonwealth nations. This year's Commonwealth Day theme, 'A Connected Commonwealth', recognises the old ties and the new links enabling international cooperation between Commonwealth countries. This year also marks the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the Commonwealth. In 1949 the association we now know, the Commonwealth of Nations, came into being with its membership based on free and equal voluntary cooperation. The Commonwealth is now one of the world's oldest political associations of states and, as members would be aware, Australia shares important historical connections with many of its members. Today the Commonwealth is home to 2.4 billion people, spanning Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Europe and the Pacific. This vast network of countries performs an important role in promoting international cooperation. The Commonwealth's 53 members are united by shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These shared principles are embodied in the Charter of the Commonwealth, which commits member states to the development of free and democratic societies and the promotion of peace and prosperity to improve the lives of all peoples of the Commonwealth. It could be said that now more than ever promoting these values is relevant to achieving international peace and prosperity. It's a particular pleasure to mark Commonwealth Day this year as the parliament has recently rejoined the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The CPA traces its origins to the Empire Parliamentary Association, which was formed in 1911, with our parliament one of the founding members. The CPA emerged from the Empire Parliamentary Association in October 1948, as parliamentarians preceded their governments by several months in recognising that the future lay in working together as equals, cooperating to build the postwar world. Today the CPA has branches in over 180 jurisdictions, and it continues to be the natural centre for members and officials of parliaments to learn their profession from each other and to contribute to the improvement of governance throughout the Commonwealth. As is customary, Her Majesty the Queen, as head of the Commonwealth and patron of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, issued a message for Commonwealth Day 2019, and I'm pleased to present her message to the House. Commonwealth Day has a special significance this year as we mark the 70th anniversary of the London Declaration, when nations of the Commonwealth agreed to move forward together as free and equal members. The vision and sense of connection that inspired the signatories has stood the test of time, and the Commonwealth continues to grow, adapting to address contemporary needs. Today, many millions of people around the world are drawn together because of the collective values shared by the Commonwealth. In April last year, I welcomed the leaders of our 53 nations to Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, and we all witnessed how the Commonwealth vision offers hope, and inspires us to find ways of protecting our planet, and our people. We are able to look to the future with greater confidence and optimism as a result of the links that we share, and thanks to the networks of cooperation and mutual support to which we contribute, and on which we draw. With enduring commitment through times of great change, successive generations have demonstrated that whilst the goodwill for which the Commonwealth is renowned may be intangible, its impact is very real. We experience this as people of all backgrounds continue to find new ways of expressing through action the value of belonging in a connected Commonwealth. I hope and trust that many more will commit to doing so this Commonwealth Day. ELIZABETH R. Electronic Division Recording System 1 12:04 The SPEAKER 00APG I have a short statement on the House division recording system. Members will notice a small change during divisions in the House this week. I'm very pleased to advise that the Department of the House of Representatives, working with the Department of Parliamentary Services, has developed an electronic division recording system. This will not change the way in which members cast their vote. The House division recording system will simply replace the current paper and clipboards used by the tellers to record votes in the House with an iPad. The tellers will continue to be appointed. They will conduct the count and certify the outcome of each division, as is the current practice. Should for some reason the electronic recording system fail, the tellers of course will simply revert to their old system. Briefs have been provided to the whips, who are responsible for the counting, and the relevant training has been undertaken by the tellers. The clerks and the tellers will be trialling this system at the first opportunity this week. The implementation of the recording system requires no changes to the process of voting or standing orders and no changes to the fabric of the chamber. Importantly, it will deliver immediate publication of the results and the information on divisions for observers of the proceedings and will provide significant time savings for the House. Developed in-house, I'm certain members will agree this is an excellent initiative of the parliamentary departments, and I thank the House. BUSINESS 2 BUSINESS Federation Chamber 2 12:06 The SPEAKER 00APG I wish to advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 3 April 2019, at 10 am as the time for the next meeting of the Federation Chamber, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed. BILLS 2 BILLS Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2018, Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018, Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018, Parliamentary Service Amendment (Post-election Report) Bill 2018, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting Retirement Incomes) Bill 2018, Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1) Bill 2017, Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 4) Bill 2018, Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018, Wine Australia Amendment (Trade with United Kingdom) Bill 2019, Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017, Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017, Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2017, Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 5) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018 2

Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018

Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018

Parliamentary Service Amendment (Post-election Report) Bill 2018

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting Retirement Incomes) Bill 2018

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

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

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

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018

Wine Australia Amendment (Trade with United Kingdom) Bill 2019

Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 5) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018

Assent 2 BUSINESS 2 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 2 12:07 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That: (1) standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business) be suspended for the sitting on Tuesday, 2 April, 2019; and (2) standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 4 April, 2019 and at that sitting, after the Leader of the Opposition completes his reply to the Budget speech, the House automatically stand adjourned until 10 am on Monday, 15 April 2019, unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 3 COMMITTEES Economics Committee 3 Membership 3 12:07 The SPEAKER 00APG I have to report to the House that on 1 March 2019 I received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating Ms Sharkie to be a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the Banking Amendment (Rural Finance Reform) Bill 2019. In accordance with standing order 229(b), as the House was not expected to sit for several weeks, the appointment became effective on that date. I now call the minister to move a motion to resolve the membership of the committee. 12:08 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That Ms Sharkie be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the Banking Amendment (Rural Finance Reform) Bill 2019. Question agreed to. BILLS 3 BILLS Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Land Scheduling) Bill 2018 3

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Land Scheduling) Bill 2018

Report from Federation Chamber 3 Third Reading 3 12:08 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 3 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Valedictory 3 12:09 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports Walking into this chamber representing the people of Melbourne Ports to serve the Commonwealth of Australia has been the greatest honour of my life, other than when my beloved Amanda, who's sitting up there in the gallery, agreed to become my wife. We're a bit eccentric. We were married in this building just after Labor was last elected. After 100 years, I'll be the last member for Melbourne Ports. For two decades, Australian Labor gave me this privilege. I owe it and the people of my electorate everything. I gave the job my all. People sometimes disagree with me—well, not just sometimes—but few have doubted my sincerity or diligence to Melbourne Ports. I hope it was enough. I couldn't have done more. For two decades, my precious wife, Amanda, my kids, Byron and Laura, who I am so proud of, who are sitting in the gallery, my brother Simon and his wife, Miriam, our wider family, led by David and Peppy Sherr, my friends and staff, and party workers and volunteers have been there for me. Could I have persevered without the Pinskiers, Kimberley Kitching, Sylvia and Maurie Freeman, Moishe Gordon, Ari Suss, the Zajacs and Nathan Shafir or my dear mate the late Con Sciacca? Could I have persevered without the friendship of Bunna Walsh the former member for Albert Park, lately Martin Foley, and Andrew Landeryou—a blood brother from university days who has always been there for me? Without all of them, without their support, their love, their belief in me and most importantly in the cause of Labor, or at least the Australian variety of it, I would not have been preselected four times or seven times re-elected. My name's on the office door, but I've always been conscious of who put me there. I'm deeply, almost spiritually, satisfied to feel that I've repaid the opportunity I've been given by my loved ones, my comrades, my local community and my country. There are so many young people who've started their political life in my office, something I'm particularly proud of. I'm pleased that so many of my loyal and talented staff are here today in the gallery. How lucky I am that two of my Praetorians—Tonya Stevens, returned especially from Germany, and Jamie Bingham, who came back from Spain—to help me with the last eight months of transition. And young Alon has turned out to be a real gun in data and social media. God bless Kristen Barry—the Dee Dee Myers of Australia—my dear friend from the Griffo days, who moved from Sydney to Melbourne just in the nick of time to help with the last few months. A learned and respected Australian rabbi James Kennard once called me a yashar—literally 'straight'. Okay, I'm a bit unbending. Sometimes I see issues as right over wrong, however inconvenient or costly it's been to my political advancement. Since I joined young Labor 45 years ago, I've fought the good fight to ensure our party is united, centrist, progressive, economically responsible but principle driven, internationalist but patriotic—a fight that good people like Bill Shorten and the rest of this party have won. I'm an unfashionable internationalist. I stand up for human rights here and around the world provided the cause is principally non-violent. I'm here for the Kurds, the Armenians, the Uygurs, the Tibetans, the Dafuris, the Baha'is and prisoners in North Korean concentration camps. Yes, I happily wear the hair shirt, the member for lost causes. Some have tried, like Ulysses, to strap themselves blindfolded to the mast to avoid my siren calls about Beijing's aggression as it laps our fateful shores. No-one has had to alert me to confront rightist extremism in the virulent forms into which it frequently mutates. I've successfully sued LaRouchites. One Nation's James Ashby I long made infamous before his current disgraceful behaviour. Even a bigoted local Liberal, the Basil Fawlty of Middle Park, I forced his expulsion from the local Liberal Party. I remember my first speech in this chamber like it was yesterday. Then, as now, Labor was on the wrong side of this chamber. Australian Labor distinctly, unlike other Labour parties, is not interested in the purity of powerlessness. We're here to make a difference and to make the world a better place. I had worked for this parliament before the construction of this grand cathedral of democracy partially buried under a hill. In the old House, I worked for the late Barry Cohen, of blessed memory, and the equally brilliant Alan Griffiths. Their encouragement and nurturing fuelled my passion to serve. Soon after coming here, I understood the wisdom of Paul Keating's aphorism that, when you get past the mezzanine floor, past rivalries melt away. So, prior to the passage of marriage equality, every year for 10 years, Anthony Albanese and I moved legislation for the equal treatment of same-sex couples under Commonwealth legislation—good working with you, Albo. For years, since being elected in 1998, almost every week I've been tasked to host some international delegation. I take them to the little-used balconies on the second floor to gaze at resplendent Canberra. How proud my folks, Margaret and Fred, would have been to see me standing under that massive Australian flag. Nothing prepared me for the day I was elected. In my first speech, I remembered my grandparents Margarette and Bruno Danziger, both murdered by the Nazis, and my presence here today is proof that the final solution failed. All those wog kids like me who are now members of parliament on both sides intrinsically appreciate that our presence also says something about the pluralistic, inclusive nature of most Australians. We all made it. As my brother, Simon, says, 'Australia, what a country!' Let me skip through the years. Fifteen years after election, Julia Gillard picked me as junior arts minister and Tony Burke kindly let me introduce my only piece of legislation, major changes to the Australia Council. But then Prime Minister Gillard sent me to Germany to supervise, with Indigenous elders, the return of stolen remains, a process ironically handled better in Germany than in France or Great Britain. It was the most poignant moment of my days as an MP, representing our country in Germany. Our respected ambassador ambushed me. It was Anzac Day. He insisted that I, not he, was to speak at the ceremony at the Commonwealth war graves. Imagine me in Berlin, in the cemetery, with our Indigenous friends, in front of 700-plus diplomats, military attaches and soldiers of the Bundeswehr. I know that this parliament and Australians, who have always stood for freedom, would be pleased that, in a reunited German capital, I looked them straight in the eye and reminded them of the painful contrast between the treatment of two artillerymen. The first was my Australian grandfather Lieutenant John Peek, 4th Division Artillery Column of the 11th Brigade, who fought there in Amiens and all the way till the end in the first war. He was treated with honour by our country. By contrast my German grandfather Hauptmann Bruno Danziger, Iron Cross, First Class, 151st regiment of artillery, whose epaulettes are all that I have to remind me of him, was deported and murdered in Auschwitz by his own country. So an Australian minister reminded the current German state of that contrast, and that is a victory for all of us—all of us in Australia and all of those who suffered. As I left the Commonwealth cemetery, our Indigenous brothers and sisters were sitting at the gate, and they were smiling at me. One of them said to me, 'We know where you're coming from, brother.' I've never had illusions that being an advocate of my electorate's support for the Jewish state would be fashionable. I was warned of the perils of being stereotyped by the usual suspects as a Jewish MP overly concerned with the fate of Israel. I wrestled with that advice but, given my background, not for long. The truth is that, as Edmund Burke said in the days before gender-inclusive language became the norm: Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. In this building, on both sides, in my own party, on its left and right, in my own local community—which is quite progressive and more interested in Middle Eastern cuisine than Middle Eastern politics—it's not always politically convenient to stand up for the region's sole democracy. They're having one of their all-out democratic dust-ups just before we have ours, and I wish them well. It cost me votes; hopefully, it attracted some too. Certainly the psephological evidence is that it did. But the truth is that, while everyone in this chamber is under an obligation to care about winning support, and I did, I would rather have lost every election, every preselection and every internal party contest if winning meant I had to corrupt my beliefs to the prejudices of the few who hate stiff-necked Jews like me. I've lost many platforms because I don't believe in the ethos 'whatever it takes'. Charlie Wilson was an American congressman who was able to make his imprint on history from the backblocks. Through my 21 years, there have been many events where I've felt I have successfully waged Charlie Wilson's war and made that difference. Some will find it eye-glazing, but for seven years I waged a struggle, sometimes behind enemy lines, mostly without leadership approval, to free the Electoral Commission to allow it to automatically update the electoral roll. It gives me immense satisfaction that two million more Australians will vote in this election than would if we'd allowed the older system of snail-mail validation to persist—Charlie Wilson's war. To Ukrainian Australians it was vital that this parliament resolve recognition of the Holodomor—the deliberate mass starvation of seven million Ukrainians, terribly described by Robert Conquest in his book, The Great Terror. Parliament passed a motion that I was honoured to propose. And Poland's former foreign minister Radek Sikorski made me a minor Polish count in recognition of 30 years of campaigning— Mr Khalil interjecting— Mr DANBY WF6 Don't laugh, Peter. I've got the medallion; I can show it to you! It was for 30 years of campaigning for the restitution of Poland's freedom and independence—Charlie Wilson's war. My decade-long campaign to free Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim will only be truly successful when he assumes the prime ministership, and I hope it's soon. I'm so proud of the fact—and it's so good for all of Australia—that he fondly remembers the 62 Australian members and senators and their major act of international solidarity to demand his freedom. Again, I've championed my friends from Darfur, the oppressed African Muslim people of Western Sudan. The record will show I've made more speeches on their behalf and schlepped them to more meetings at international conferences than I can remember—Charlie Wilson's war. And who can forget Rebiya Kadeer and the brutally oppressed Uygur people of East Turkestan, occupied by China in 1949. After Beijing tried to wreck Ms Kadeer's appearance at the Melbourne International Film Festival for her film, The 10 Conditions of Love, 6,000 people held a foot-stamping tribute to her in the Melbourne town hall which I co-hosted. It created such international publicity against the authoritarian oppression of the Uygur people that The New Yorker paid tribute to our solidarity in Australia with Ms Kadeer and the Uygurs, with the headline 'We are all Melbournian'. I've always stood with the Baha'is, so terribly abused in Iran. In 2009 my little electoral office organised in Melbourne the ninth international conference on human rights in North Korea. Given my background, it was my duty to remember that there are 300,000 people in concentration camps, even as we speak, in North Korea. It was a special act of memory that I organised the first ever publication of a map detailing the names and places of these concentration camps which expose the Kim regimes for what they are. The map was published in The New York Times. Last but not least, there's my 20 years of devotion to the cause of the peaceful Buddhist people of Tibet, many of whom are sitting in the gallery. We took the first Australian parliamentary delegation to the Central Tibetan Administration in Dharamshala. I would've waged Charlie Wilson's war alone for that moment in Dharamshala where the Dalai Lama asked me to speak to 5,000 saffron-clad Tibetan monks and their families. My dear friend Tenzin Atisha is here in the gallery, as is His Holiness's representative Lhakpa Tshoko—I tell you: I'm not a Buddhist, but working for the Dalai Lama's vision of a peaceful, autonomous 'third way' has given me more karma than anything that you've received in political support from me. Thank you. Given the treatment of the Uygurs, the Tibetans, the Mongols, many dissidents, including Australian citizens unjustly jailed there, and Labor union dissidents, it's no wonder I was a happy warrior in my most current and minor official capacity as the deputy chairman of the Treaties Committee. It's no coincidence that the Senate disallowed the extradition treaty with China. I'll never regret using my capacity to articulate why it would be oppressive for Australia's 900,000 Chinese Australians to be threatened with the prospect of being extradited to the tender mercies of Beijing. Some will remember my campaigns on Huawei and other Charlie-Wilson and Don-Quixote tilts at windmills. Actually, with Huawei being banned from the NBN and 5G, it seems that someone knocked over those windmills! Nor was I the apple of the eye of the former foreign minister Julie Bishop. I placed an enormous electronic billboard in St Kilda, knocking her government's romance with Iran, but I'm proud of the fact that I forced the Turnbull government to hold an inquiry into the lifting of some of the government's sanctions on Iran despite Iran's notorious behaviour around the world. The committee conducted the inquiry, which was critical of the government's approach in lifting sanctions without adequate safeguards. Tomorrow we will welcome the new US Ambassador to this place. I've known the last seven US ambassadors to Australia. Anyone who reads my time line knows that I'm no big fan of the current US President. But whether it's early rock 'n' roll—in particular, Chuck Berry—the better products of Hollywood or the civilised debate in the high-end US media, we need our friendship with the United States. Navigating our relationship with America is a basic bottom line for an island continent like Australia. Democracies need to stick together. And I pay tribute to the US Charge' d'Affaires, Jim Caruso, who is in the gallery, for the fantastic work he has done in cementing relationships between our two great countries. I leave parliament, after nearly 20 years, a happy warrior, with my party in the best hands I've seen it. We have a well-led team, and Labor will, if elected, have the most accomplished and gender-balanced ministries in the history of the Federation. The immortal Australian actor Leo McKern, as Rumpole of the Bailey at his supposed retirement party, found his treatment so felicitous that he denied any suggestion he was leaving chambers. He accepted the clock he was being given as a moving tribute as evidence of how much they needed him. Like Rumpole, part of me desperately wants to stay. But I know it's my time. I will be the last member for Melbourne Ports. It's pleasing that my friend and former staffer Josh Byrnes, who subsequently served Premier Andrews, has stepped up, and I hope he'll succeed me in the new seat of Macnamara. So I go out under my own steam, with a successor I approve, and I believe Labor will hold the seat. How many in politics win a trifecta like that? Bill Shorten's Labor Party—his leadership—is a vindication of every fight, every victory and every sacrifice I've experienced on the battlefield of Labor politics since, as a 17-year-old, I wandered into the legendary final election rally at the St Kilda Town Hall in 1972. We can never be complacent, but this party has never been stronger, never more united, in all my years of observation. And I don't say this lightly; I've been through many struggles over the last 35 years. I believe the member for Maribyrnong will win the next election. He'll be a Prime Minister in the mould of Bob Hawke, who set a high standard that has not been matched since. In Bill, we have the last great hope in international politics for the success of social democracy around the world. I feel a deep nostalgia for this place, and all it stands for, before I walk out the doors for the last time. As I pack the boxes and farewell the hardworking people who keep this grand building working—the attendants; the drivers; library researchers like Geoff Wade; and committee staff like Jerome Brown, Clarissa Surtees and Dr Anna Dacre—I feel a longing for all the unfinished business I leave here. Although I moved a first reading of the Magnitsky Act, it is not enshrined in our law. The government has come to favour having a legislative device for pushing back against corruption and human rights abuses by authoritarian countries. I say to this parliament that Magnitsky would allow us—like the US, Canada and the UK—to tell states like Russia that you can't kill 38 Australians and get away with it. Unfortunately we seem to have run out of time. Facebook's live streaming of a white supremacist snuff movie after Christchurch is the latest excess of an out-of-control online world where social media has been weaponised by both malevolent and anonymous trolls to threaten violence and defame opponents. Worse, it has been used by states in information wars, in interfering in the recent US and French elections. My suggestion to this parliament, which I hope you take up in legislation, is that social media must have real identities behind each Twitter, Facebook and Instagram account, and that will balance the world out. Then they will be treated like the normal media and be subject to the same rules of all countries, as they should be. Our country, in my view, is still unprepared for the challenge from Beijing. But I've seen such resistance and such united action across the aisles, and in the media, that I have every confidence that, in the future, we'll handle that problem. As the clock races down, can you see I miss parliament already. I miss the opportunity to help set the nation's agenda. I miss all of you already. There's a nobility of purpose to this building, even when debate is at its most robust or the behaviour, and some attacks, are lower than community expectations of us. But there's a nobility of purpose that you don't hear the press gallery talking about much, which is a shame, because that nobility extends to them too. We're all here, a band of brothers and sisters, serving the country we love and the people who make it so worth loving. And, as I leave, I hope these words from Theodore Roosevelt are remembered by those serving in the next parliament, the 46th Parliament—they might sustain you in the lonely nights, the cold winters, after the crushing character assessments that come so freely to you from the fourth estate, the opposition and even your colleagues: It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. You know, I don't think I've changed one iota since I was that 17-year-old who walked the whole length of Balaclava Road from my grandmother's house in Carnegie—where Bill used to live too—to attend that sweaty, sultry 1972 'It's Time' rally in St Kilda Town Hall. Surely my humble career shows that each of us, each parliamentarian, can make a difference. We can strive to make this wonderful 'Straya' a better place. Now I utter my final parliamentary words to Bill and the team—go, as Honest Abe said to his generals, and get me a victory! COMMITTEES 7 COMMITTEES Corporations and Financial Services Committee 7 Report 7 12:35 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde My congratulations go to the outgoing member for Melbourne Ports. I wish him all the best in his future endeavours outside of this place. On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the report Fairness in franchisingand the Report on the 2017-18 annual reports of bodies established under the ASIC Act. I seek leave to make a very short statement. Leave granted. Mr VAN MANEN 188315 I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the entire committee for what's been a tremendous piece of work. I would like to thank the former chair of the committee, Steve Irons, and the current chair, Michael Sukkar, who is not here. In particular, I'd like to thank the secretariat, so ably led by Patrick Hodder and his team. Particularly, the franchising report is a tremendous piece of work that creates the opportunity for us to see significant improvements in the sector in the years to come. I commend these reports to the House. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e). Treaties Committee 7 Report 7 12:37 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report titled Report 185—Defence Support-France; WTO Government Procurement; Prisoner Transfers-UAE. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence 7 Report 7 12:37 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan On behalf of the Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence, I present the committee's report on the inquiry into intergenerational welfare dependence titled Living on the edge, together with the minutes of proceedings. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr BROADBENT MT4 Today I present the report of the House Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence, titledLiving on the edge: an inquiry into intergenerational welfare dependence. In recent years, Australia has experienced a remarkable period of continuous economic growth. Many people in Australia enjoy a high standard of living, making the most of educational opportunities, employment and pa rticipating in their community. Despite this success, there are Australians who have not shared in the nation ' s growth. Some Australians have experienced hardship or instability which has extended into a life that is characterised by entrenched disadvantage. In some cases, this involves long-term reliance on welfare payments and programs, extending from one gen eration to the next. T his inquiry found that the factors contributing to intergenerational welfare dependence, or entrenched disadvantage, are complex. For some Australians the bar riers into employment are multifaceted and they require long -term support. The c ommittee heard that there is a correlation between parents receiving welfare for significant periods of time and their children also requiring welfare payments. This report identifies a wide range of risk factors that can lead to intergenerational welfare dependence — many of them ' external influences ' , such as geography or health. Other risk factors arise during the course of events in a person ' s life, such as experiencing trauma, growing u p in disadvantage, displacement or simply not having enough suppo rt at key points in their life. The committee received evidence about the challenges faced by single mothers who don ' t receive adequate child support from their former partner, sometimes for several years. We also heard of people who lose their job due to illness or carer responsibilities. When they are able to return to work, there are many more applicants than available jobs. We heard of many people in the community experiencing financial distress so severe that the amount of time and energy required for daily survival limits their ability to even look for work. The report focuses on the principles of successful welfare programs, including Australian case studies that inspired the committee by making real progress in tackling entre nched disadvantage. The committee heard h ow Logan Together in Queensland and the Brotherhood of St Laurence ' s HIPPY program (Home Interaction Program for Parents and Youngsters) are supporting people through ' place based ' programs that are designed specifically to meet local needs, and with the input of local people. This tailored approach needs to be in conjunction with ' wraparound ' services — a coordinated approach that supports people at known pressure points throughout their life. These programs often work with more than one generation — supporting parents as well as their kids. The report recommends continued efforts of coordination between departments and other sectors — in terms of program design, funding and delivery. The committee r ecognised the need for long -term funding a rrangements to allow for longer term commitments that are absolutely essential if government is to make inroads in to address ing entrenched disadvantage. The report presented today describes complex circumstances and the principles that need to be in place to successfully address them. Prompt implementation of this report ' s 16 recommendations will benefit some of our nation ' s most vulnerable people — immediately and in the long term. I sincerely thank witnesses who shared their difficult personal experience of entrenched disadvantage with the committee . I also thank the organisations and departments who are working closely with this vulnerable group in our community. It is clear that many Australians are really doing it tough. They are oft en in remote and regional areas and , in many instances, they are sin gle mothers and their children. In conclusion, I thank the staff of the committee very sincerely for their determined approach to this committee. I thank the d eputy c hair , Ged Kearney, and the committee members for their dedication and bipartisan approach to this inquiry and the way they supported me throughout this inquiry. I co mmend this report to the House, and I attach my name to this report. I move: That the House take note of the report. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 8 12:42 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. National Disability Insurance Scheme Committee 8 Report 8 12:42 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the committee's Progress report on the inquiry into general issues around the implementation and performance of the NDIS. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ANDREWS HK5 by leave—Since the committee's inception, the growth of the NDIS has been significant—from approximately 30,000 participants in mid-2016 to more than 250,000 participants today. This progress report considers progress made in addressing issues identified during previous inquiries undertaken by the committee as well as key issues raised in evidence by participants, families, carers and service providers. The committee reviewed progress made in relation to the provision of services under the NDIS for people with psychosocial disabilities since the release of its report in August 2017. The committee is concerned by the lack of progress in ensuring that people with a psychosocial disability can access appropriate support services under the NDIS or outside the scheme. In essence, the challenges associated with the transition to the NDIS for eligible participants and continuity of support for those outside the scheme remain significant. The committee heard that issues around inconsistencies in eligibility and planning outcomes, as well as issues with the planning process and adequacy of plans, were continuing to jeopardise people's access to appropriate, reasonable and necessary supports. The uncertainty and lack of clarity around how continuity of support arrangements for those outside the scheme will be delivered in the near future requires urgent attention from all governments. The committee welcomes the recent government announcement to extend funding to support transition of people in Commonwealth-funded programs to the NDIS. However, longer-term arrangements for existing program clients not eligible for the NDIS should be put in place before closure of existing programs. In relation to progress made in the provision of services under the NDIS Early Childhood Early Intervention approach, the committee heard that improvements have occurred since the inquiry. However, some key issues remain and include delays in provision of services, significant challenges in addressing the needs of children with autism spectrum disorder and the lack of a clear national strategy around the ECEI approach under the NDIS. Indeed, the committee is gravely concerned by the recent reports of long delays in accessing early intervention support services under the ECEI pathway. The committee also heard on many occasions that best practices deliver early childhood intervention services in natural settings. However, it appears that under the current NDIS pricing structure it has become unviable for service providers to do so. The committee is of the view that early childhood service delivery models under the NDIS should not be determined on the basis of cost drivers but on maximising outcomes for children so that they can reach their full potential. In relation to progress made since the transitional arrangements inquiry, the committee is concerned by the lack of progress in addressing interfaith issues between the NDIS and mainstream services, the worsening of areas within markets and the absence of clear provider of last resort arrangements. The committee acknowledges that the interface issue between the NDIS and mainstream services is complex. However, there is growing evidence that NDIS participants are being denied services and care because of funding disputes between the NDIA and other government services. In extreme cases, this is resulting in people being unable to leave hospitals for several months. The situation is untenable and requires immediate action, regardless of the state of progress of discussions of state and territory governments and ad hoc arrangements to delineate the roles and responsibilities of the NDIA and mainstream services. The committee is of the view that there should be an immediate introduction of a formal mechanism to ensure that a person-first approach is taken in the delivery of services in the event of funding disputes. In relation to the provision of hearing services, the committee acknowledges the significant work the NDIA has recently undertaken to develop referral and funding approaches that will appropriately support children with hearing loss, their families and their carers. The committee found the establishment of the referral pathway through Australian Hearing for newly diagnosed children aged nought to six years encouraging. However, the committee is concerned that this referral pathway has an uncertain future and is, in essence, an interim measure as the in-kind arrangements with Australian Hearing are only secured until 30 June 2020. Other issues discussed in the report include the NDIA's communication with participants and service providers. The committee acknowledges the recent efforts made by the NDIA to increase its engagement with the disability sector. However, based on the evidence received by the committee, the engagement appears to be at times tokenistic. The committee is of the view that the NDIA should more systematically utilise the expertise of the sector to inform the development and review of its operations and guidelines. This would significantly assist the NDIA in developing initiatives to strengthen the effectiveness of the scheme. The committee received a wealth of information and evidence through the inquiry and thanks all who participated. As a result, the committee has made 18 recommendations which aim to ensure that improved and appropriate arrangements can be put in place to provide necessary and reasonable supports for all NDIS participants and fully realise the objectives of the scheme. This is the ninth and final report in this parliament of the standing committee. I thank all those members of the committee who have worked assiduously throughout the parliament. I'd like to particularly thank the deputy chair, Senator Alex Gallacher, and I'd also like to acknowledge the work for this committee not just in this parliament but in previous parliaments of the retiring member for Jagajaga, Ms Jenny Macklin, who has brought a wealth of experience and thought to the process. Finally, I thank the members of the secretariat for all their wonderful efforts during the course of these inquiries in this parliament. Electoral Matters Committee 10 Report 10 12:49 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the following reports: the Advisory report: Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018, incorporating dissenting reports, and the Status report, together with minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GILES 243609 by leave—These two reports conclude the business of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for this parliament, and they mean that nine reports have been presented to this parliament through the work of this committee. That has involved an enormous amount of work, and I acknowledge the contribution of the secretariat and those staff seconded from the Australian Electoral Commission, who have provided invaluable work to this committee, which has a particular set of responsibilities which go to safeguarding the quality of our democracy. The first report I want to turn to briefly is described as a survey report, and it reflects some ongoing work which will have to be attended to by, perhaps, the minister at the table, but more particularly the committee in the next parliament if we are to safeguard the quality of our democracy, particularly in an age which is characterised by an increasing capacity and preparedness to engage in disinformation—practices which go to the heart of our capacity to have meaningful democratic conversations about the issues that matter to Australians. This is one of many significant matters that the successor committee to this committee will have to have regard to. This committee is also presenting to the House now a report on a bill which was introduced to the Senate and which would have the effect, in part, of lowering the voting age. On behalf of the Labor members, I just want to make two brief observations in respect of this. Firstly, I draw the attention of the House to the Labor recommendation, which is that in the next parliament we give proper consideration to this question of enabling 16- and 17-year-old Australians to vote but on the basis that we do not interfere with compulsory voting, which is another cornerstone of our democracy and a great guarantor not only of equal participation in our democratic processes but of its legitimacy across the community. This is of particular importance at times like this. I also want to acknowledge the people, particularly the young people and their representative organisations, who gave evidence to this committee and demonstrated to me and my colleagues on the committee that in young Australians, those below the present voting age, we have some incredible, articulate, visionary people, great activists, with a diverse range of interests and a passion for the future. And I have absolutely no doubt that our committee reaching out to young people in settings like schools has offered the opportunity for us all to think harder about how we can improve our democracy. With that, I commend both of these reports, but particularly the dissenting report of the Labor members in the voting bill report, to the House. And I move: That the House take note of each report. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 10 12:53 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I move: That the orders of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Environment and Energy Committee 10 Report 10 12:53 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne On behalf of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, I present the committee's report entitled Cane toads on the march: inquiry into controlling the spread of cane toads, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Dr GILLESPIE 72184 by leave—I am pleased to present Cane toads on the march, the report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy's inquiry into controlling the spread of cane toads. Cane toads are a scourge on our land and native wildlife, and unfortunately there is no easy solution to get rid of them. But the federal, state and territory governments can work better to limit their numbers where they exist and, most importantly, to prevent them from invading the parts of Australia that remain untouched. At one major frontline of the cane toad invasion, the committee has recommended funding for the modification of artificial water sources such as troughs and dams to prevent cane toads spreading from the Kimberley into the Pilbara and further into Western Australia. And I note this occasion of luck: there is a short 70-kilometre strip of land whose only available water source is man-made troughs and dams. That lends itself to constructing a physical waterless barrier which would prevent the march of the cane toads further south. The committee has also recommended a suite of other measures for the Australian government, the states and the territories to pursue together to combat this pest. These include: funding projects for cane toad tadpole trapping and for suppressing cane toad eggs from hatching by using chemicals extracted from the dying cane toads themselves; funding further research from CSIRO, universities and other bodies in new biological control methods and including trials of those identified methods; improved measures to protect coastal islands from cane toads, just as we want to prevent them from spreading into the larger reaches of Western Australia—and isolating and maintaining a barrier from cane toads getting onto our islands is equally important; and, most importantly, better cooperation with landholders, traditional owners and volunteer groups, new cooperative planning and monitoring efforts, and an expedited review of the National Cane Toad Threat Abatement Plan. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the scientists in the community and the environmental groups, who have done so much already, and everyone who has contributed their knowledge and work to an extensive compendium of knowledge about this terrible pest in our nation. In particular, I thank the secretariat, for their wonderful help to the committee members, and those who made a submission. I commend the report to the House. Infrastructure, Transport and Cities Committee 11 Report 11 12:57 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong On behalf of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, I present the committee's report entitled Innovating transport across Australia, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ALEXANDER M3M by leave—The automation and electrification of mass transit is a potentially revolutionary development in transport. Done well, it could make our cities and regions more accessible, livable, productive and sustainable. Achieving this outcome will demand vision and leadership from government. The committee's previous report, Building up and moving out, set out a blueprint for the planning of our cities and regions. It identified opportunities for transforming connectivity through integrated multimodal transport networks. This current report is an extension of that work. Mass transit is the key to creating better mobility. Automation and electrification will make mass transit safer, more efficient, cleaner and quieter. But they will also demand changes in the regulatory environment and transport infrastructure. This will require planning and investment, with policy responses framed around the different requirements of cities and regions—greenfield sites and brownfield sites. Ideally, our transport networks will consist of seamless systems operating across a variety of transport modes. These networks will serve cities and regions that are characterised by densification and decentralisation. Mass transit will provide high-volume trunk routes as the arteries of the transport network, with shared mobility and active transport providing the capillaries of the system. The goal should be the creation of a new transport ecosystem. The electrification of transport has the potential to lower costs, reduce the environmental impacts of land transport and enhance fuel security. Hydrogen fuel cell technology in particular has the capacity to power mass transit options. It is well suited to buses, trucks, long-haul vehicles and even trains. The key to electrification is ensuring that the relevant infrastructure, especially refuelling stations, is put in place. The synergies between automation and electrification mean that convergent development should be encouraged and that electrification and automation should be implemented and managed together. The most important thing the Australian government can provide to the future development of automated transport and new energy sources is vision. Within this vision, the Australian government should provide leadership and coordination of policy that focuses on consistency and interoperability between jurisdictions. It should also facilitate the development of national standards based on relevant international standards and coordinate the development of relevant energy and communications infrastructure. Governments need to commit to automation and alternative fuels by designing and building infrastructure around their requirements. It is also important that governments engage in the art of transition in managing the introduction of automated and electric vehicles. Not least of the government's responsibilities in this regard will be ensuring compatibility and interoperability of charging infrastructure, making sure that there is standard charging mechanisms for all vehicles. In conclusion, I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this inquiry. This was a short inquiry. Nonetheless, the committee received high-quality evidence from a range of people and organisations dedicated to the improvement of our urban environment and transport networks. They provided clear evidence on the benefits of transport automation, mass transit and electrification and the need to clearly define a pathway to an automated and electrified future. I would also like to thank my committee colleagues for their considered and bipartisan work on this inquiry and throughout the 45th Parliament. It has been a pleasure to work with them, and I think we have shown what can be achieved when members of all parties work together in a constructive way. Last but not least, I would like to thank the secretariat for their dedicated and highly professional support of the committee throughout the parliament. On behalf of the committee, I commend this report to the House. 13:02 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham by leave—I just want to take this opportunity, recognising, as the chair has just outlined, that this may be the last opportunity in this parliament for us to talk about the fabulous work of the committee that we've been chairing and that I've been deputy chair of over this parliament. I would encourage people to look at this report. It's a significant body of work which was turned around in a reasonably short period of time, I have to say. Transport in our cities, between our cities and between our cities and our regions is something that's such a significant and important issue, and this was an opportunity for us as a committee to look at innovation in that space and the challenges and opportunities it presents. A range of really solid recommendations have been put forward by the committee to look at ways in which, if I can use the analogy of the transport committee, instead of having the future come down the track at us, we as a nation can actually apply some foresight and anticipate where those challenges and opportunities are and respond effectively. I think the committee's report provides some very good signposts around alternative fuels, infrastructure and communications infrastructure which are so much more closely knitted with transport infrastructure in this modern space. If we get all of those aspects right, we can really improve the connectivity across the nation that the chair talked about. So I would encourage people to have a look at the report. Have a look at the recommendations in particular, but also have a look at the significant discussion, because we had such fantastic contributions by many, many members of the community about the opportunities for automated mass transport and alternative fuel technology availability. The main reason I wanted to speak today was to have the opportunity to thank very much the member for Bennelong, who chaired the committee. He has been a really inspiring chair. He has been really determined to work through the evidence and get a bipartisan position. Some of the best work that happens in this place happens in that frame and doesn't get enough attention. Sometimes chairs can be quite the opposite, so I wanted to acknowledge that the member for Bennelong wasn't like that. He took a very determined view that we should try to reach a bipartisan outcome. I thank all the other committee members, who worked really hard. Most importantly, I specifically want to say thank you to the committee secretariat: Lynley Ducker, the committee secretary; Bill Pender, the inquiry secretary; Tegan Scott, the researcher; and Kelly Burt, the office manager. The work we do in this place is world class, and it's world class because of the outstanding calibre of the people who work in the parliament with us. They are too often the unsung heroes of this place. This committee secretariat did a professional and really outstanding job in putting together in this parliament two major reports, which I think have contributed very significantly to the national discussion. I want to put on record my appreciation for their work. Hopefully, we will see this committee, which has a long and very proud history across many parliaments, continue to do that in the next parliament as well. 13:06 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I thank the member for Cunningham. I recognise how pleasant it was to work with her and I look forward to that continuing. I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 12 13:06 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Communications and the Arts Committee 13 Report 13 13:07 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie On behalf of the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, I present the committee's report of the inquiry into the Australian music industry, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr HOWARTH 247742 by leave—The Australian music industry is a challenging and highly competitive industry in which to pursue a career. Many Australians dream of a career in the music industry and being able to make a living out of their passion and talent for music. It is vital that the Australian music industry works to ensure that artists and other industry careers are supported and sustainable, and that a diverse range of Australian artists are able to thrive. Investment in the support and promotion of Australian artists is essential to the retention of talent and, ultimately, the sustainability and growth of the Australian music industry. The Australian recorded music industry has experienced significant disruption as a result of technological advances and the rapid digitisation of the distribution of music, forcing the industry to adapt and evolve. It is no small challenge to successfully provide a competitive and attractive alternative to 'free' music. However, the recorded music industry's recent return to growth and decrease in the number of consumers downloading music illegally is evidence of the industry's successful adaptation to the digital disruption. In its report, the committee encourages streaming services to publish clear, consistent and transparent information regarding how payments for artists are calculated. Furthermore, the committee found that the pricing cap on licence fees for the radio broadcast of sound recordings distorts the market in a way that disadvantages Australian artists and has recommended that the cap be removed. A thriving live music scene is essential to the development of Australian artists. Throughout the inquiry, it became clear that the regulatory environment at the state and territory and local levels is a significant factor in the success of a city's live music venues and its music scene more broadly. The committee recommends that the Australian government invest in the Live Music Office to continue its work advising and supporting state and local governments to develop regulation that encourages and celebrates live music, rather than hindering it. It also recommends that the Australian government invest in supporting Australian artists to tour in Australia, both in major cities and in regional areas. I note that the government has announced a new $22½ million grant program to bring more live music to Australian communities and an additional $2 million to the Australia Council to increase performance opportunities for musicians, including in regional venues, through the Contemporary Music Touring Program. For Australian music to flourish, it must be heard. It is essential that Australians can easily access and encounter Australian music—hear it on the radio, find it on streaming playlists and hear it in our favourite television programs and in the films we see. The committee encourages music streaming services to work with the Australian music industry to establish benchmarks for Australian content on locally curated playlists and makes recommendations regarding the application and monitoring of Australian music content quotas for commercial radio. The digitisation of the distribution of music has provided unprecedented opportunity for Australian music to reach a global audience. The scale of Australian music exports is rapidly increasing, and the committee supports the Australian music industry's ambitious goal of Australian music gaining a five per cent market share of the global music market by 2030. The committee recommends that the Australian government invest in Sounds Australia's music exports program and that it prioritise and support Australian music at government activities and events. It also recommends that the Australian government work to develop mutually beneficial visa arrangements with the United States of America to allow artists from both countries to more easily showcase and tour. I note that the government has announced an additional $1.6 million for Sounds Australia to expand the reach of the program into new markets, including in Asia. Australian artists and the music they create are the product that every other part of the music industry exists to promote, sell or develop. Making music takes a significant investment from artists—not only the cost of recording or staging music but also the time involved in learning their craft and applying their knowledge and skills to create great music. It is essential that Australia support and safeguard its talent pipeline, ensuring that Australian artists are able to create great music now and into the future to this end. The committee makes recommendations including: encouraging states and territories to improve access to music education for public primary and secondary school students; investing in initiatives aimed at training and supporting Australian artists and industry professionals to grow and develop their businesses; investing in grants and industry partnerships that support artists in the creation of new music and new recordings; and investing in Support Act to enable it to expand its services and deliver crisis support for Australian artists that are experiencing financial hardship, ill health, injury or mental health issues, preserving Australian talent and ensuring that artists are able to thrive during the good times and the bad. I note that, in addition to the measures mentioned already, the government has announced new programs funded in this year's budget that focus on women in music and Indigenous musicians. These national development programs will provide professional training in contract negotiation, marketing and finance as well as support for touring and recording and for planning effective touring circuits. I would like to thank everyone who appeared before our committee to give evidence. I would like to especially thank the secretariat staff involved, who have been of great assistance to me and the committee—Casey Mazzarella, Jazmine Rakic and Stephen Boyd. And I want to thank all the committee members, especially the deputy chair, the member for Gellibrand, and everyone who was involved in tabling this report. Thank you. DELEGATION REPORTS 14 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Vietnam, Thailand and Brunei 14 13:14 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Vietnam, Thailand and Brunei, 15 to 25 July 2018, and ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr RAMSEY HWS I shall keep my remarks very short. I'm aware there are time constraints on the House this week. Suffice to say that we were welcomed by the three countries we visited: Vietnam, Thailand and Brunei. We were warmly welcomed, I must say, with all making it very clear that they value our friendship and valued the delegation, and that was very rewarding in itself. I must make a special note of Thailand, where it was obvious that our now Australians of the Year, Dr Richard Harris and Dr Craig Challen, are possibly even more famous there than they are here for their role in the rescue of the boys from the cave in Thailand. I'd like to thank the other members of the delegation: the deputy leader of the delegation, the member for Bruce; the member for Moore and Senator O'Sullivan. I'd particularly like to thank our delegation secretary, chaperone and drafter of the chair's report, Michelle Brennan from the Parliamentary Library, for her capable assistance. To our embassies in Vietnam and Thailand and the high commission in Brunei, I extend the delegation's thanks. They were more than professional. They were absolutely on top of their task, and I congratulate them. BUSINESS 14 BUSINESS Rearrangement 14 13:16 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I move: That order of the day No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 14 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018-2019, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018-2019, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019 14

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018-2019

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018-2019

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

Second Reading 14 13:16 The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Before the debate is resumed on this bill, I remind the House it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018-19 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018-19. The question is that the bills be now read a second time. 13:17 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Last week, I finished the last of 21 community forums across my electorate, from Kingscote in Kangaroo Island to Victor Harbor on the southern Fleurieu Peninsula and right up to Houghton and the Lobethal communities at the other end of my electorate. Over the course of March, I heard from over 500 people at the forums. They were from all ages and backgrounds, from school-age environmental campaigners to self-funded retirees. Despite their differences, they all wanted the same things: action on climate change, access to quality education and affordable health care, and a focus on regional infrastructure. We have many of South Australia's fastest growing communities in Mayo—Mount Barker, Aldinga and the south coast—and we need to ensure that our roads, schools and hospitals will meet the growing need of our regional communities. For the Kangaroo Island community, access to health care is indeed an urgent matter. The island's sole medical practice is based in Kingscote. It is difficult to secure an appointment with the GP due to the demand for services. The residents must also contend with travel costs and time spent travelling to and from Kingscote. I'd just like to say that Kingscote and Kangaroo Island, as a community, now no longer have any form of public transport across the very large island, which is deeply concerning. That's why I'm calling on the federal government to provide seed funding for a trial of a GP outreach service based in Kingscote that could also travel to Pandana, Penneshaw and, indeed, American River. Affordable access to high-quality health care is an issue felt keenly across my electorate, with the shortage of GPs resulting in the downgrading of emergency and after-hours services in a number of community hospitals. And that's why I'm calling on the government to make a significant investment in the Mount Barker hospital emergency department. I do welcome the announcement of $8.6 million that was provided for the expansion of the emergency department, but many experts in the community believe that this is not enough. This is really just a bandaid solution. Based on the seven per cent population share of the nation, SA alone should have received $93 million of the government's proposed $1.3 billion community hospital program. So $15 million for a hospital infrastructure project that serves a local population catchment of well in excess of 80,000 people—and particularly as Mount Barker itself is set to grow to 55,000 people—is not only fair and reasonable but means that our community will receive the level of health care that it needs and deserves. With respect to health care, there is such a difference between whether you live in metropolitan South Australia or in regional South Australia. We really are treated as second-class citizens. Dental care is often overlooked, but it is a fundamental aspect of health care. Unlike when you visit your GP, or even for a trip to the hospital, the majority of the costs for a visit to the dentist are funded by the patient, with Australians paying 58 per cent of out-of-pocket costs of dental care, compared to around 12 per cent for a GP visit. Because of the cost, over two million people avoided or delayed going to the dentist, and the situation is particularly challenging for those on low incomes, like our aged pensioners. That is why I'm committed to seeing the federal government fund a voucher system that enables people on the age pension to claim up to $1,000 for dental care in any two-year period. That must be able to be delivered in their own local community and that's why the voucher system that exists for those up to 18 years of age should, I believe, also be there for age pensioners. This should be the first of many steps in creating affordable access to dental care for all Australians. The greatest policy failure of our current generation and of this parliament is our inability to move on climate change. No other policy issue has been plagued by such partisan attacks and no other policy issue has heralded the repeated fall of Australian prime ministers. Mayo is already feeling the effects of more volatile rainfall, with flash-flooding becoming a regular occurrence. Our communities on the Lower Lakes and beyond know only too well the devastation caused by drought. However, the lack of large-scale government support for long-term environmental rehabilitation and futureproofing means we are doomed to see the same story of agricultural and environmental distress repeat itself. My coastal communities are increasingly concerned and affected by king tides, severe storms, coastal erosion and sea level rise. My coastal councils are desperate for assistance because this is a problem that local governments simply do not have the financial capacity or expertise to address. But, as is often the case, the community has provided the leadership that is so sorely lacking from government. Community environmental NGOs provide hundreds of thousands of hours of dedicated volunteer labour and a very cost-effective way of leveraging funding for maximum environmental benefit and effect. However, federal government funding for these organisations has been irregular—it has been scattergun. It has been diminishing the ability of our community environmental NGOs to maintain their capacity and provide consistent environmental assistance. A funding floor will guarantee that capacity will be sustained and long-term community and environmental projects can be started and finished. It is an important truism to state that education is critical to the future prosperity of our community. Education creates so many social benefits, including better employment outcomes, lower crime rates, improved civic engagement, reduced rates of drug addiction and healthier families. Transitioning young people from schooling to further education, whether that be vocational education and apprenticeships, on-the-job training or indeed tertiary education, is a major predictor of their future success. I know from my previous work in the youth sector and my regular meetings with local educators that we need urgent capital upgrades to Mount Barker and Victor Harbor TAFE SA campuses. If we don't act now, the ageing TAFE facilities will significantly restrict the quantity and quality of courses they can offer our young people, impacting severely on their future. It is utterly ridiculous that in my community, where we have one of the fastest growing regions, being Mount Barker, young people cannot do any construction courses at the local TAFE. It just beggars belief. If we want our young people to stay in our regions and in South Australia, we need the major parties to invest in quality training. That's why I'm calling on the government and the opposition to make an investment of more than $500,000 in Mayo's TAFEs. It's not a huge amount of money, but it will mean the world of difference. We must ensure that our public schools have the resources they need to meet the increase in demand, and that is why, as the education spokesperson for Centre Alliance, I negotiated an extra $424 million for South Australian schools through the Gonski 2.0 education reforms, with an extra $66 million for Mayo schools. But we need more. Schools across my electorate, from Eastern Fleurieu School in Strathalbyn to Mount Barker South Primary School, are at capacity. Multiple classes are being jammed into busy libraries or forced outside even during heatwave conditions. This simply should not be happening in a modern country like Australia. I am committed to improving education outcomes for Mayo and I will work with all levels of government to deliver fairer and stronger funding for our schools. Finally, as a regional and rural electorate and with limited public transport options, it's imperative that our local roads are maintained. It is unacceptable that I have constituents saying that their cars are actually being damaged as a result of our local roads falling into disrepair or that their friends won't come and visit them because they need a four-wheel drive to do so, and that's in places that are 50 kilometre or less, as the crow flies, to the city. To account for this inequity, South Australia for many years received supplementary road funding from the federal government. This funding recognised that South Australia had more than 11 per cent of the nation's local road network but received less than five per cent of national road funding. The previous Liberal government cut this funding in 2014. Centre Alliance successfully fought for the reinstatement of the supplementary road funding in South Australia in 2017, but that funding is coming to an end. Once that funding was reinstated, South Australia's regional councils received an extra $40 million over two years to assist with maintaining our extensive local road network. This funding is due to expire at the end of this financial year, on 30 June 2019. It is imperative that the government commit to extending this funding. It is fundamentally unfair that South Australia is left behind with respect to regional road infrastructure. I will continue to work hard for a better deal for our regional and rural communities right across Mayo. 13:27 Dr PHELPS 008Z0 Wentworth Climate change is one of the most pressing environmental, social, economic and political challenges of our time. If we don't get it right our children and grandchildren will be paying the price and we will be counting the costs for generations to come. Climate change and the environment are top-of-mind issues for the people in my electorate of Wentworth. They're also of great concern to Australians everywhere. This will be a climate change and environment election, and the time to act is now. Just this morning, I met with Cassy Faux and Lauren McGrow, who were victims of the recent Tasmanian bushfires. When you consider there have been disastrous floods in Queensland, prolonged drought and storms, as well as a million dead fish in Menindee on the Darling River and a dramatic drop in temperature following a very long period of hot weather, it is clear we are seeing a rise in the prevalence of extreme weather events. I've spoken a number of times in this House about the need for urgent climate action. The cost of inaction will be significant. Another important part of the climate argument is the impact on our environment, and today I would like to speak about the growing problem of ocean plastics. In the past fortnight, we saw a whale in the Philippines that starved to death after it ingested 40 kilograms of plastics. Forty kilograms is an enormous amount, and this was a wake-up call to all of us that we need to take action to limit the amount of plastic that is dumped into oceans and rivers worldwide. The global population is living, working and vacationing along the coasts, and coastal populations are in the front row for the greatest, most unprecedented plastic-waste tide ever faced. According to Boomerang Alliance, 275 million tonnes of plastic waste is generated globally each year. In 2016, over nine million tonnes of plastic entered the world's oceans. Ocean currents have formed five gigantic slow-moving whirlpools called gyres, where the plastic collects. Most of the plastic debris sinks or remains in the gyres, but a significant percentage of it is suspended in ocean water where it endangers sea life or washes onto our coastlines daily. The CSIRO recently completed a survey which found that that three-quarters of the rubbish along Australia's coast is plastic. Most of it comes from Australian sources, not the high seas, with the debris concentrated near cities. I was a volunteer this year in Clean Up Australia, and you couldn't miss the plastic debris. 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 17 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS St George Chinese Community Memorial 17 13:30 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Mr Deputy Speaker, I'd like to tell you about the return of a dragon and the construction of a wonderful monument out in my home town of St George. This was a memorial to the Chinese community, designed by a young school student, Daisy Brown. The project architect was Lewis MP Lee; the structural architect was Dr Peter Ho; the builder was Wing Hing Builders; and it was all supervised by Lewis Lee. The unveiling ceremony for this project occurred on the weekend, out in the electorate of the agriculture minister, David Littleproud. We worked on this together; we were co-patrons, with the mayor, Richard Marsh. Under the chairmanship of Jack Sun, the St George Chinese Community Memorial was a project which brought many people together. It was a wonderful opening ceremony, with the local councillors there and also Megan O'Hara Sullivan from the Toowoomba Shire Council. Also out there were Consul-General Shen Ang from the Consulate-General of the People's Republic of China and local community leaders: Hugh Polson from the Sunnybank RSL and Surendra Prasad. This event was overseen by Chek Ling, the heritage adviser. Simon Tang spoke, as did quite a few other people. Near the end of the project, we saw Melody Chen actually donate a dragon to the St George community. It was all about recognising the contribution of the Chinese diaspora to that part of St George, but it's a story that could be told in any town in Australia. Hinkler Electorate: Infrastructure 17 13:31 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise with great news for the people of the Hinkler electorate: yesterday we announced that the federal government will contribute $173 million to the Hinkler Regional Deal. This is a game changer for our region. As part of that announcement, $40 million will be provided to the Fraser Coast Regional Council for the redevelopment of the town centre in Hervey Bay, something they've never had before. There was $7.7 million for an extension of the critical link through Hervey Bay which is known as Boundary Road and, of course, there was $9 million towards a $26 million upgrade at the local airport. That has already resulted in a contract with council for a manufacturer to go in there to build aeroplanes for export. That means 100 permanent jobs in that region. In the Bundaberg area, there was $32 million for what's known as the Quay Street bypass and $10 million down to the Gladstone Ports Corporation. That is wholly state owned, but the state simply would not act and so we have acted. That will provide a multi-use conveyor which will allow more exports out of the Bundaberg port. Of course that will range right out into the west, into the minerals province of the North Burnett. All of those individuals looking to export from a closer port will now have that opportunity. So I say to Deputy Premier Trad in Queensland: get on board! Stop playing political games; we need you to contribute to the deal into the region. Stop messing about because your Labor mates want you to; this is about real people in the regions. We can do something to change their lives—you should do it, and do it now. Lalor Electorate: Victorian Open Mosque Day 17 13:33 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor On Sunday 17 March, in the shadow of the Christchurch terrorist attack, I attended the Victorian Open Mosque Day at the Virgin Mary Mosque in Hoppers Crossing in the electorate of Lalor. I was joined by my sisters and my son, as well as Tim Pallas, Victoria's Treasurer, Henry Barlow, a local councillor, and hundreds of other visitors to the mosque that day. I want to thank all at Virgin Mary Mosque for the welcome that they gave to general members of the community. It was the largest attendance I've seen in five years. Together, our communities came together to stand against terrorism and to reach out to our neighbours, both locally and in New Zealand, to say that we are one and to say that we mourn for those lost—for the innocents in Christchurch, gunned down while in prayer in a place of worship and a place of sanctuary. I want to send a strong message to the two Islamic schools in my community—Al-Taqwa and the Islamic College of Melbourne—to tell the young people who are studying in those schools today that together we are strongest. Love will overcome, and understanding of one another and a neighbourly hello will see us through the darkest days. Wheelchair Tennis 17 13:34 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan This year at the Brisbane International, I was delighted to also be a spectator for the Festival of Wheelchair Tennis. This festival, funded by the government, included ‘come and try' sessions, an exhibition with Dylan Alcott and Heath Davidson and competitive matches involving several elite players. The competition saw six of the top 20 internationally ranked players compete in a doubles tournament. Along with more than 16,000 people who came through the gates during the two days of play, I had a wonderful time watching these talented athletes, and I look forward to seeing continued growth of this format of tennis in Australia. With the ATP World Team Cup coming to Brisbane in 2020, Tennis Queensland will again look to build on the 2019 wheelchair tennis event by engaging a larger playing field, and this time include a women's tournament and provide more community engagement opportunities for coaches, clubs and other stakeholders. The 2020 tournament will also launch the international wheelchair tennis calendar, providing a great lead-in to the Australian Open and the Tokyo 2020 Paralympics. We all know the fundamental importance of sport to the health and wellbeing of a community, and I congratulate Tennis Queensland and Tennis Australia on their determination to make tennis a sport for all abilities. Budget 18 13:36 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I stand here today to warn this out of touch LNP government that there better not be any cuts to my community in this budget. Townsville has had enough of the cuts and chaos created by this government. I have listed a few demands that I want to let the government know need to be in the budget. First, reverse the $8.9 million cuts to Townsville hospital and health services. Second, reverse the millions of dollars in cuts to Townsville public schools and match Labor's $23.5 million. Third, match Labor's $4.1 million commitment to The Oasis Townsville—a hub that will support serving members, veterans, ex-serving members and their families before, during and after transition to civilian life. Fourth, match Labor's $200 million for hydropower on the Burdekin Falls Dam. If this government can fund Snowy Hydro in the south, then they can fund Burdekin hydro in the north. Fifth, match Labor's commitment to increase naval ship maintenance at the Townsville port—a new industry and hundreds of local jobs. Sixth, stop the LNP attack on the public sector and reverse the 200 ATO, 50 Defence and 19 CSIRO job cuts and match Labor's commitment of 200 jobs for the Department of Human Services. Seventh, reverse the cuts to TAFE and the cuts of $36 million to James Cook University and $38 million to Central Queensland University. My community will act on election day if these demands are not met. I will fight tooth and nail for local jobs. Grey Electorate: Economy 18 13:37 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey It's with great anticipation that I am looking forward to the Treasurer delivering a balanced budget tonight—a surplus budget. I must say that we are already beginning to see the benefits of a well-managed economy in my electorate. Last week, we had the announcement of $150 million for major roadworks in the Grey electorate—$50 million on the Barrier Highway; $75 million on the Eyre Highway; and $25 million on Eyre Peninsula, which will soon have to cope with the closure of the railway there. It is a great outcome. Last week, we announced 16 new mobile phone towers across the electorate, with another two rounds of funding to come. The week before, I announced the establishment of a new headspace in Port Lincoln. That is what you can do when you are in charge of the money and when you know that you can pay the bills. That is what this Treasurer and our finance minister have done. They are returning Australia to surplus and putting us back in that strong position where we can get on with the jobs in our electorate and actually deliver the things that people want—telecommunications, road networks and mental health facilities. It is a great outcome, and I am so looking forward to tonight. It seems like it has been a long time since I got here in 2007. In 2007, we had a wonderful surplus budget—a surplus budget which was plunged into a $48 billion deficit within two years. We will turn that all around tonight. (Time expired) Rattey, Sergeant Reginald Roy, VC, Dunne, Mrs Daphne 18 13:39 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Last week, I was very pleased to be able to attend the Reg Rattey VC Tri-Service Club at Larrakeyah Barracks in my electorate. They held a marvellous celebration in honour of the late Reginald 'Reg' Roy Rattey, Victoria Cross winner, last week, on what would have been his 102nd birthday. Celebrating this fantastic milestone and the unveiling of a fantastic portrait of Reg by artist George Petrou were Reg's children, Rob, Carmel and Helen, and some other family members. Also there was author Michael Madden, who has recently published a book called The Victoria Cross: Australia Remembers. Michael informed us that the last surviving widow of a World War II Victoria Cross recipient is 99-year-old Mrs Daphne Dunne from Kirribilli in New South Wales. Daphne's late husband, Albert Chowne, VC, MM, was just 25 years old when he died in a courageous attack on a Japanese machine-gun post in Papua New Guinea. Albert was awarded the Victoria Cross medal posthumously. Daphne is currently unwell in hospital in Sydney, so we send her our very best wishes. I will speak to the member for North Sydney and I'm sure that, if the family agrees, he would go and visit Daphne, the last surviving widow— (Time expired) Gilmore Electorate 19 13:40 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore What a blast to have my last 90-seconder as an opportunity to say thank you to the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, and to the Treasurer and the economic review committee for the allocation of funding towards four special projects in Gilmore. These have been dear to my heart from the very first day in this place. There are $9 million over three years for a rehabilitation facility for our youth in the Batemans Bay region, as a direct consequence of the recommendations of the Ice Taskforce. Next, $25 million are committed for the aquatic and arts precinct for the Eurobodalla—to match the grant from the state government—for youngsters, injury healing, swimming and fitness. It was a long, arduous task to gain funding for Bundanon, which had been often left out, but finally Scott Morrison has recognised the unique legacy that has been given to our nation, for the arts, Indigenous culture regeneration and education, in the exhibition space in this wonderful place. Finally, there is $500 million to be allocated for the New South Wales section of the Princes Highway. Six years of badgering have now been rewarded. This is, of course, my last 90-second spot, but what a way to celebrate my time in this House. What a way to say to Labor: 'Stop borrowing our commitments and pretending they're yours. The public can see through those stupid games.' The residents of Gilmore have worked tirelessly, hassling me so I can hassle our government for financial support. And only the Liberals and Nationals have the financial skill to make such things happen. Climate Change 19 13:42 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison In 2017, the Treasurer, now Prime Minister, held up a black lump and said: This is coal. Do not be afraid. … It will not hurt you. But, today, I met two bushfire survivors from the Huon Valley in Tasmania. And, believe me, they were afraid, and the shocking recent Tasmanian fires did hurt them. There was Cassy, who has a business in Geeveston, who told me of the effect of the fires on tourism as visitor numbers dwindle and accommodation bookings are cancelled. And there was Lauren, who told me there've been dozens of job losses as local businesses struggle from reduced demand and fire damage. Both women explained how what were previously once-in-a-generation extreme weather events are now happening year after year, with dramatic consequences right around Australia; how, by putting filthy coal before the health and safety of Australians, politicians are failing to protect us from harm; and how the Prime Minister especially is fuelling climate change. So today, hopefully in the presence of Cassy and Lauren, I'm calling on the PM to take responsibility and to reach out to the bushfire survivors who are demanding he apologise directly for his climate inaction—because, if those on the government benches are not doing everything they can to fight climate change, they're just fuelling the fire. Berowra Electorate: Housing 19 13:43 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Sydney property is one of the most talked-about subjects in my electorate. For most people in Berowra and most Australians, their home is their most important asset. We've had a significant property boom over the last decade, but conditions appear to be changing. Banks are making it harder to get a loan, and some are using the cover of the royal commission to achieve this. Real estate agents tell me that the market correction has happened and that Labor's housing taxes will see homes that have dropped in value drop further. Newspaper stories abound of 20 per cent declines in property prices over the last 12 months, including in my electorate. In my own area, the situation has been made worse as a result of the Berowra hailstorms, which caused people to move out of their homes unexpectedly and rent, creating a much tighter rental market. Home ownership is important. It's people's stake in the economic system. A healthy property sector is the harbinger of economic confidence. When the value of people's homes is increasing, they feel confident to spend and invest, but when it's decreasing, it affects confidence in the economy more broadly. At the coming election, there is a real choice for anyone who owns or rents property: the coalition and its plan for growth or Labor and its plan for tax. Labor's housing tax, increase in capital gains tax and changes to negative gearing will send housing prices down, rents up and confidence away. Labor's mistimed housing tax takes a cooling market and puts it in the deep freeze! Burt Electorate 20 13:45 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Since 2016, I have been working to build a better Burt. We know Centrelink is in crisis under this Liberal government. It is understaffed and under-resourced. Pensioners, the disabled and carers have already put up with enough, and delays at Centrelink only make their lives more difficult. A Shorten Labor government, if elected, will create 40 permanent full-time Department of Human Services jobs in the electorate of Burt. These new positions will benefit thousands of residents across our region. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has turned its back on our area, and its years of cuts have left residents waiting longer and longer to receive support from these services. These 40 jobs will not only speed up waiting times for those in our community; they will inject about $3 million a year into our local economy. Last week, I was ecstatic to be part of announcing that a Shorten Labor government will commit $929 million to Tonkin Highway projects in Perth's southern and eastern suburbs, across the electorates of Burt, Hasluck and Canning. Residents of Burt have been telling me for years of their frustrations with the highway—in particular the need to upgrade the intersections of Hale, Welshpool and Kelvin roads. This funding will deliver on those upgrades. The funding will not only make our roads safer; it will ease congestion, which will decrease the time people spend on the roads and make their work-life balance better. This is all part of delivering a fair go for my community and continuing to build a better Burt. Forde Electorate: Health Care 20 13:46 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde Upper Coomera is one of the fastest-growing areas in my electorate of Forde. This burgeoning community and surrounding suburbs Pimpama, Willow Vale and Wongawallan have seen rapid increases over the past few years. I'm pleased to say that during the break in sittings, the government announced a new fully funded MRI licence for the Upper Coomera community, which will be of great benefit to that community. It will allow services to be provided locally, saving residents from going down to the Gold Coast for scans. Importantly, this is about saving lives and providing health and medical services where people live. We understand the importance of these facilities. For people feeling stressed, having health issues or with difficult family circumstances, having these services right on their doorstep will be an enormous boon. I want to thank the team at Qscan radiology clinics and congratulate them on successfully obtaining this fully Medicare funded MRI licence. It will not only be the MRI but the other services that will go with that, such as X-rays and CT scans. It will provide a full suite of radiology services for the Upper Coomera community—just another example of this government's record investment in health across the country. His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos Harkianakis 20 13:48 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I wish to pay tribute to His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos Harkianakis, who passed away last Monday. I extend my deepest sympathies and condolences to the Greek community and to His Eminence's family. Archbishop Stylianos served as the primate of the Greek Orthodox Church of Australia since 1975 and was truly a modern spiritual leader. He made an extraordinary contribution to the Greek Orthodox community and beyond. His Eminence founded the first Greek Orthodox seminary in the Southern Hemisphere, with the establishment of St Andrew's Greek Orthodox Theological College in Sydney. He had a strong sense of justice, was passionate about education, and worked tirelessly to help children with special needs and the elderly. His Eminence loved the beauty of poetry and was himself an accomplished poet, publishing 37 collections of his work. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to attend many functions and gatherings with His Eminence and spend time with him during celebrations at St Spyridon parish in Kingsford, St Spyridon College at Maroubra, St Catherine parish at Mascot and the Castellorizian nursing home in Kensington, all of which serve the thriving and passionate Greek orthodox community that I am proud to represent in this parliament. It was a privilege to attend the annual Epiphany Festival celebrations at Yarra Bay, led by His Eminence, who performed the blessing of the waters. He will be sorely missed by all Australians. May he rest in peace. Bonner Electorate: Roads 20 13:49 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner Today I would like to bring to your attention a very serious traffic issue in my electorate of Bonner: the chaotic roundabout at Rochedale Road and Priestdale Road and their associated roads. This is effectively a convergence of traffic from four local schools and an early learning centre. At school drop-off time, it is utterly chaotic. A few months ago, I was approached by Warren Craze, a very concerned local resident and parent of a student at one of the local schools. He spoke to me about the ongoing issues associated with this local traffic hazard, and so immediately after speaking with Mr Craze I began a petition calling for support from the community. I have gathered almost a thousand signatures from concerned locals in just a few short weeks. This issue has been the topic of discussion for Brisbane City Council and Logan City Council for a while, and thankfully they have just agreed on a way forward and will now begin working on a business case to design and fix this intersection. The total cost of this project is estimated to be $28 million. I'm working alongside the newly elected lord mayor, Adrian Schrinner, and the minister for urban congestion and infrastructure, the Hon. Alan Tudge, to fix this issue. Having grown up in Bonner, I know what my electorate wants and needs and I will always work hard to deliver for them. Live Animal Exports 21 13:51 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Contrary to Minister Littleproud's tough talk a year ago, when horrific cruelty of live sheep exports to the Middle East on board the Awassi Express was aired on Australian TV, the Morrison government has again capitulated and will allow live sheep exports to continue to the Middle East during the hot northern summer months, when temperatures can soar to 45 degrees. In allowing the shipments, the government is going against its own review recommendations and once again relying on assurances from a discredited industry that claims the new standards will prevent sheep from suffering. This is the same industry that, for the past four decades, has failed to clean up its bad practices; that has been the subject of several damning reviews; that has been given numerous chances to get its house in order; and that has now lost the confidence of the Australian people. Compliance with appropriate animal welfare standards cannot be guaranteed once sheep leave Australia and are in another country or on the waters, and they certainly cannot be guaranteed while northern summer temperatures present unmanageable risks regardless of stocking densities. No level of sheep deaths on board export ships is acceptable, and the industry should be assisted to transition to exporting locally processed chilled meat. The Morrison government should follow Labor's lead, take note of its own reviews and commit to ending live sheep exports and the unnecessary suffering. Small Business 21 13:52 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher The choice that faces small-business owners in Fisher in May is stark. On one hand, they have a Liberal-National coalition government which has cut their business taxes and will cut them further, has extended their instant asset write-off and has reduced their red tape by nearly $6 billion. We've introduced 20-day payment terms on government contracts and created billions of dollars of new export opportunities through free trade agreements. On the other hand, they have a Labor Party which wants to increase company taxes, introduce a 30 per cent tax grab on discretionary trusts, send energy bills skyrocketing with their extremist ideology, increase penalty rates and leave small businesses vulnerable to $8 billion dollars in holiday back pay for casual workers who've already received their extra loading. It is a choice between a Liberal-National government that is delivering our first budget surplus in 12 years, has created 1.2 million new jobs and has the second-fastest growing economy in the G20 or an economy-destroying Labor Party more interested in placating the unions and the Greens than in increasing prosperity for all of us. Small and family businesses are the backbone of this country and the lifeblood of my local community. The Liberal-National Party understands their hard work, their contribution and their commitment to local communities. We will never stop working hard for small businesses— (Time expired) Sydney Metro Northwest 21 13:54 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise to speak about an important matter affecting some rail workers in my electorate. The Sydney Metro Northwest is scheduled to commence operations in May and, now the project is nearing completion, the north-west metro trains facility and operations centre is located in that part of Rouse Hill that is in my electorate. I've recently been made aware of a series of industrial issues at the metro site, including concerns about rosters, the lack of fatigue management standards, work-life balance and even matters as basic as how much workers are going to be paid. These conditions matter. They are standard across the rail industry and have been designed to keep workers safe and, in doing so, to keep safe the hundreds of thousands of passengers who use public transport every day. I have been informed that last week Sydney Metro terminated the employment of a Rail Tram and Bus Union delegate without a reason. I'm informed that Sydney Metro has relied on spurious reasons at best to support their action to terminate this delegate's employment. I am also informed there are very serious concerns that the delegate's employment was terminated due to his involvement with the union, including his attempts to fight for a fair agreement for all operational employees. I do hope that this is not the case and that these matters are promptly resolved. Workers, no matter where they are, have the right to bargain and organise collectively, and they should be able to do so without facing intimidation or the fear of reprisal. These matters need to be addressed urgently, so I say to the workers at Sydney Metro: I stand in solidarity with you in your fight for the fair workplace agreement you deserve. Robertson Electorate: Peninsula Recreation Precinct 22 13:55 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I'm wearing the colours of Umina United football club because this week we are celebrating an announcement for the peninsula. It's a really exciting announcement. Over the weekend I was joined by nearly 100 members of the local community for a barbecue to announce that the Peninsula Recreation Precinct at Umina Beach will undergo a multimillion transformation, with $8.25 million in commitment from this government to upgrade the precinct. Our sporting clubs are the lifeblood of the community on the peninsula, and this project is about making sure that our kids have access to outstanding sporting infrastructure, connecting families and our community together and making sure there is something for every age group. I had the chance to sit down with some of the kids using the tired skate park that's currently there and members of some of the local sporting groups, and they shared with me just how much this means for them and how proud they are, knowing that the peninsula will have access to some of the best sporting infrastructure and facilities around. I want to pay tribute to Rod Unsworth, Tony Winch and Mark Nitsos from the Umina Community Group for all their hard work over the past two years in advocating for this and for bringing the community together in the process. I'd also like to pay special tribute to Gabby Greyem from Jasmine Greens Park Kiosk for her continued advocacy for this project and the peninsula. And to each and every person who signed the petition, sent me an email, came up to me in the streets and added their voice: this happened because of your voice and your commitment to our community. Schools 22 13:57 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Like many first-generation Australians—children of migrants—I am profoundly grateful every single day that my parents chose to make their home in Australia. I'm grateful to them for the stable and loving home they gave me and I'm grateful to this nation for the first-class public education I received, because it changed my life and it changed the course of our family's life for generations. I see it as one of my most profound responsibilities to pass on those same opportunities to subsequent generations of Australians: to my own children and to children just like them—millions of children, right around Australia. That's why I was so very happy today to join with principals, teachers, parents and the wonderful Australian Education Union at the front of Parliament House to make a case for fair funding for our public schools. We know those opposite have cut $14 billion from growth in public school funding. They've agreed to fund Catholic and independent schools, and we join them in supporting the restoration of funding for Catholic and independent schools. But it's public schools that teach two out of every three Australian children, and it's public schools that now face these $14 billion of cuts. But Labor will restore every single dollar. Goldstein Electorate: Environment 22 13:59 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Our community is blessed with amazing beaches on Port Phillip. This summer there was good and bad news for beachgoers from the EPA about water quality. Black Rock ranked fifth of the beaches in Melbourne. Hampton was sixth. Sadly, Brighton ranked lower than we all would have liked. Beach pollution takes many forms, including litter, such as cigarette butts and microplastics, and also stormwater, which carries pollutants, including oil, into our precious waters. I saw it first-hand with Hampton beach patrol on Clean Up Australia Day this year. It took less than an hour to pick up a whole bag of rubbish. Rubbish has become so problematic that Bayside council recently announced plans to ban single-use plastics in its venues. The health of our beaches is paramount. Port Phillip is our greatest natural asset. One of the challenges facing Port Phillip is legal ambiguity about ownership and responsibility. My plan for our community is to bring together the Marine and Coastal Council and state and federal governments so that we can work together. We face broader challenges around sea level changes, sand movements and coastal erosion that need to be confronted as a united team. As I said when I first entered this place our environmental approach must prioritise reason, technological advancement and scientific endeavour to drive and care for our environment, and that's the plan I will work towards. CONDOLENCES 23 CONDOLENCES McIntosh, Senator the Hon. Gordon Douglas 23 14:01 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House of the death, on Sunday, 10 March 2019, of Gordon Douglas McIntosh, a former senator. Gordon McIntosh represented the state of Western Australia from 1974 to 1987. As a mark of respect to the memory of Gordon McIntosh, I invite all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. Christchurch: Attacks 23 Reference to Federation Chamber 26 14:25 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the Christchurch attack be referred to the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. Herron, Hon. Dr John Joseph, AO 26 Reference to Federation Chamber 28 14:34 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the resumption of the debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence relating to the death of the Hon. Dr John Joseph Herron AO be referred to the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. Carlyon, Mr Leslie Allen AC 28 14:35 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Mr Speaker, I rise on indulgence—indeed, in response to your own suggestion—to acknowledge the passing of Les Carlyon. Les Carlyon was a master of words. He helped Australians understand ourselves and our national story. On Gallipoli, the Great War, on the track and on the events of the day, he knew what to say. There seemed to be nothing—no person, no street scene, no world event, no horror, no joy—that he couldn't capture. Of the great horse trainer Bart Cummings, Les wrote that his eyebrows 'were a creeper in search of a trellis'. Perhaps he could have said that about one other holder of the office I now hold—and I am sure he wouldn't mind the reference! On political correctness, he said that it was 'to look at the world through a keyhole not a big bay window'. He had words when words would fail most of us. This was never truer than when he turned his mind to chronicling some of the most turbulent and tragic events in Australia's history—the story of our First World War experiences at Gallipoli and on the Western Front. These were indeed epic works. Without them, today's Australians could never fully understand the horrors and lessons of the Great War and the sacrifice of 60,000 Australians made real for a whole new generation of Australians and generations to come. In those tomes, he never lost sight of the people who were at the centre of them. In The Great War he contemplated those hundreds of thousands of young men and said, 'We never really saw them.' So Les helped us to see them—and to know them as well. Les died last month after a long illness, which apparently wasn't his preferred way to go. He used to say that he'd like to go by falling off a horse. He didn't get that wish. But he may have gotten the next best thing: he had his send-off at Flemington, a place that Les loved. On behalf of this parliament, I offer our sympathy to Denise, Les's beloved wife as well as editor and researcher of his great works—a wonderful partnership in Australia's interest. And our sympathies go to his children, Richard, Patrick and Kate, and the wider Carlyon family. His pen may be down, his voice may now be silenced in this world, but his words will always stay with us. Australia has lost a fine son. 14:37 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong In the weeks since Les Carlyon's passing, colleagues, proteges and admirers have all sought to find the words to say what he meant to them and our country. But, in truth, for Les, there will never be the right words. John Harms is a great sportswriter himself. He recalled the first time he picked up a copy of Chasing a Dream. A phrase caught his eye on the first page, so he folded the corner down to mark the place. He then turned to page 2 and realised he couldn't fold the paper both ways. So John went to work with a pencil—there were asterisks and square brackets—marking sections and making notes. I think that sums up Les Carlyon: magic in every sentence, a gem in every paragraph. He never spent a sentence in vain. There was artistry and craftsmanship in equal measure. There was nothing 'for the sake of it', though; there was no ornamentation in his writing. I am lucky enough to be the member of parliament for Flemington and Moonee Valley race tracks. And Les wrote as he liked to see the horses raced: 'gamely, for speed, not overburdened by the science of strategy'—just the right words. All his working life, Les possessed a brilliant knack for finding the right words—and a visceral loathing for the wrong ones. For example, he couldn't stand it when people spoke of racing as an industry. After all, he'd never heard anyone on a train home from Flemington talking about what a great day they'd had at the industry. As he put it: 'Packaging is an industry, yet no-one stands alongside the production line to applaud a cardboard box. No-one suggests a cardboard box has character.' Really, that was the essence of Les's work: character—the character of unfashionable, unstoppable winners like Vo Rogue; the character of Galleywood, who rose from his fall at the Warrnambool Cup like Lazarus on four legs; the character of wily trainers like Vic Rail or the brilliance of Bart. Les said that if Bart Cummings ever took up fishing, the trout would leap from the water to impale themselves on naked hooks. He wrote of the character of famous racers—of Kingston Town's third Cox Plate: down past the school, around the tight corner, moving in a few strides 'from has-been to immortal'—and through it all the character of our country. Great disservice is often done by people who compare sport to war, and in fact it takes a very special gift to write about both. Les was a great historian for the same reasons he was a wonderful sports journalist. He didn't blunder off into lazy cliches or indulge in cheap sentimentality. He didn't write backwards from a conclusion that he'd already formed. Les was an observer, a student of behaviour, someone who understood heart and passion and luck and triumph and disaster. He could see a deeper truth and share it with us all, whether it was watching Bonecrusher move into the gates, eavesdropping on Bob Hawke and Andrew Peacock exchanging pleasantries at the mounting out on derby day, or bringing to light the letters and diaries of diggers long gone, finding the humanity amongst the unimaginable death and devastation of Gallipoli and the Western Front, deriving for us some sense of what Australia truly lost on those battlefields and what we might yet gain. I remember in 2016, when we were in this House marking the centenary of Australia's first battles on the Western Front, I rang Les and asked if he would look at the draft of some remarks I was preparing. I sent it through and waited with some anticipation for some of Les's vivid prose. He rang me up soon after and said: 'Thanks for that, Bill. It reads well. The Western Front was probably the worst tragedy Australia experienced. You might want to give some thought to all those healthy young men who came home missing a limb or disfigured or with their lungs ruined by gas.' That was it. For me, that was Les Carlyon: simple, profound observations and then another layer of insight, a different perspective, a more compelling angle—the right words. His words will always be with us, and for that we should be grateful. May he rest in peace. 14:43 The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for those remarks. Can I say very briefly, as someone who has read, like many members, his books on Gallipoli and on the Western Front, Les told the Anzac story like no other. Many have written of Anzac but none have done it better, in a more compelling or captivating way, than him. I've purchased those two books on many, many occasions. I think booksellers have wondered why I keep purchasing the same books; it's because they're regular history prizes. Passing on that history, those words will live on and be read by students in the decades to come. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 29 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:44 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Treasurer will be absent from question time today, because he's preparing for the first budget surplus in 12 years, and I'll take questions on his behalf. The Minister for Defence will take questions on behalf of the minister for trade. I table the revised ministry list. The document read as follows— MORRISON MINISTRY Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Human Services in the Social Services portfolio and a Department of Veterans' Affairs in the Defence portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 30 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 30 14:44 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has spent years making it harder for Australians to make ends meet. He's supported cutting penalty rates and jacking up taxes, like his $44 billion Medicare levy increase. After six years of cuts and chaos and just six weeks before an election, does the Prime Minister seriously expect his last-minute decision to copy Labor's bigger, better tax cuts for Australians will hide the last six years of cuts and chaos? 14:45 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I can assure the member that the Liberal and National parties will never be borrowing any economic policy from the Labor Party. That will never happen. This side of the House will never say that some people deserve tax cuts and other people deserve tax increases, because, on our side of the House, we believe that, when all Australians are working hard, all Australians deserve to keep more of what they earn. On this side of the House, we believe in the economics of aspiration, not the politics of envy and punishment that is pursued by the Labor Party as they run around seeking to drag people down, under the pretence that they're trying to lift others up. I was wondering: what would be the point of Australians working hard under a Labor government? What would be the reward? What would be the point of starting a business? What would be the incentive to go out there and make that extra sacrifice? The harder you work under Labor, the harder it gets under Labor. The more you actually go out there and take risks to make Australia stronger and to make Australia the country it can be, the harder it gets under the policies of the Labor Party, who just want to tax you more. The evidence of that is more than $200 billion in higher taxes—that is what the Labor Party are proposing at the next election—and I heard that the member for McMahon, with his chest all beefed up out there, was puffing away about how he would have to bring down another budget if he and the Labor Party were to be elected. Well, I'll tell you why they'd have to introduce another budget: because they'd have to increase taxes. That is what the Labor Party would need another budget for, because you won't find tax increases in our budget tonight—you won't find that at all. But you'll find them thick and deep in the first Labor budget if that is ever to be inflicted on this nation. Instead, what people will get tonight is the first surplus budget in 12 years. That's what they'll get tonight. The last time the Labor Party had a surplus was 1989. I had long curly hair back then—that's how long ago that was. It was a very long time ago. And, thankfully, the photos were in analog; they weren't in digital! The last time that the Labor Party had any decent economic policies is beyond anyone's memory. So I can assure the member for McMahon: I won't be reading his little book of big fat taxes that he wants to put on the Australian people when it comes to setting the economic policy for this nation. The budget that will be handed down tonight will be building our strong economy, to ensure we can secure Australians' future. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 31 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:48 The SPEAKER 00APG I'd just like to inform the House we have joining us in the gallery this afternoon the former member for Riverina, Kay Hull. On behalf of the House, I extend a warm welcome. We also have participants in the Inter-Parliamentary Study Program, who are joining us from parliaments all around the globe. On behalf of members, I extend a warm welcome to all of you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 31 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 31 14:48 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how our government's economic plan is building a stronger economy and a secure future for all Australians? 14:48 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Dunkley for his question. I know he's excited, like everyone on this side of the House is excited, because, after 12 long years, Australia will be back in the black tonight when the Treasurer comes to this despatch box to hand down the first surplus budget in 12 years. It's been a long way back from when Labor was elected in 2007 and turned a $20 billion surplus into a $27 billion deficit in just 12 months. It's been a long way back. And what that tells us—all the way back there when the member for Lilley became the Treasurer—is: you vote Labor once, you pay for it for more than a decade. That is the consequence, because, when Labor get into power, we know that they cannot manage money. You vote Labor once and you pay for it more for than a decade because the Labor Party propose to change it all—higher taxes on families, higher taxes on retirees, higher taxes on businesses and higher taxes on Australians who just want to work hard and get ahead and provide for their families. That surplus has been achieved by getting the budget under control, and it's been achieved by getting Australians back into work by building the strong economy which has ensured the highest growth in employment in a year that this nation has ever seen, with more than 1.2 million jobs created under the economic policies of this government. And what is the dividend of that? Guaranteed, delivered funding for essential services in health, in education, in pharmaceuticals, in disability care and in aged care—that is the dividend of a strong economy. You do not guarantee funding for essential services by increasing taxes. That is the false economy of the Labor Party, and that is the three-card trick they'll try and play on the Australian people. The plan that we have been implementing that has delivered a stronger economy and guaranteed record funding for essential services is the plan that you will continue to see tonight: a balanced budget; paying down debt; lower taxes on all Australians without increasing taxes on any Australians; backing small and family businesses; ensuring that we're taking all industry forward, whether it is our mining industries and agricultural industries or our new frontier industries in the health and medical instruments sector; and the infrastructure that both busts congestion and drives our economy forward. This budget will be delivering for the hardworking Australians who are making Australia stronger, and this budget is for them. Morrison Government 32 14:51 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The government has spent the last 12 months fighting Labor's bigger, better, fairer tax cuts. So, after six years of cuts and chaos and just six weeks from an election, does the Prime Minister seriously expect that his last-minute decision to imitate Labor's bigger, better, fairer tax cuts will con the Australian people into believing that the last six years of chaos, cuts and division didn't happen? 14:52 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook This is why we know Labor can't run the economy—because they can't add up. We legislated a $144 billion personal-income-tax plan after the last budget, and the Labor Party want to reduce that by $70 billion. The Labor Party want to put up taxes on hardworking Australians. They want to put up taxes on retirees and people who have saved and paid taxes all their lives. The most insulting thing that the Labor Party have said about their appalling retirees tax is, 'They don't pay any tax.' These Australians have paid tax all of their lives, and this Leader of the Opposition wants to put a tax of $5 billion a year on retirees. Here they are, walking around the chamber like Brown's cows, because they don't want to face the truth. They don't want to face the truth that under Labor you will always pay more. And we learnt this week that it won't be just the $200 billion of higher taxes— Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce is warned! Mr MORRISON E3L because of their big carbon target. You can call it a carbon tax. You can call it a carbon price. All I know is that people are going to be paying more because of the reckless targets that the Labor Party want to put on everything that moves. They want to tell farmers what they can do on their property. They want to tell you what car you have to buy. This is a tax that is going to cost Australians in their wages $9,000 a year. This is what the Labor Party's reckless carbon target is going to do to our economy. And, more than that, $36 billion of cost is going to be heaped on the businesses of Australia. Now, it takes a special form of genius for the Labor Party to come up with a tax that doesn't even pay to the government. Under the member for Lilley, we had the mining tax that didn't raise any revenue. That was a special form of Labor genius. But $36 billion of forcing companies to buy foreign carbon credits from Kazakhstan or somewhere else. How are businesses going to pay higher wages if they have to pay foreign carbon traders $36 billion? This is a tax on everything that moves, and the Leader of the Opposition can't even explain the details of it. He's had 5½ years to explain to the Australian people how he is going to meet his reckless 45 per cent emissions reduction target. Well, the simple answer is this: he's going to make Australians pay more for absolutely everything. Infrastructure 32 14:55 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and . Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the government is investing in roads to boost production, create jobs and get people home sooner and make them safer on our roads? How might a different approach hurt jobs and construction in regional communities and also in Queensland? 14:56 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Flynn for his question. I don't know why they yell out when the member for Flynn asks a question. He has run more businesses successfully than any of those on the other side ever would. The only businesses they've run is running them into the ground! I'm glad that the member for Lilley is here, because it was in 2012 that he stood in this spot and said, 'The four years of surpluses I announce tonight'—. Well, tonight he finally can watch a surplus budget be delivered—by the Liberals and the Nationals. Yes, how good is that going to be? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wills is warned! Mr McCORMACK 219646 Tonight's budget is all going to be about infrastructure. The age of infrastructure is upon us. The age of infrastructure is here. We've already rolled out $75 billion and there is going to be more. I tell the member for Flynn that the eight councils in his electorate are going to benefit from a record—a part of the $2.2 billion investment in road safety. We all know how important road safety is—$2.2 billion, including Roads to Recovery. For the 537 councils across Australia, many of them in Labor electorates, this is going to be so beneficial. For the eight councils in Flynn, that will roll out better roads, getting people home sooner and safer, as the member for Flynn asked about. That's what it is all about: making sure they can get home to loved ones and spend less time in congested traffic. Whether they are in Gladstone or in Melbourne or wherever they are right across this nation, it is making sure that people have road safety provisions. It is delivering for the people of Gladstone in the budget tonight. The Liberals and Nationals have committed up to $100 million to upgrade road access to Queensland's largest multicommodity port of Gladstone. It's a busy port—I've been there recently. We want to make it even more busy. Gladstone residents will benefit from fewer heavy freight traffic vehicles on our local roads. The budget is going to address the safety concerns caused by heavy vehicles interacting with local and general commuter traffic, as well as supporting more efficient movement along key freight supply chains. This is big news for the big employing industries in Gladstone, big news for agriculture and big news for the mining sector. They are writ large in Flynn and the member for Flynn backs them all the way. But we heard from those opposite that they do not back industry. No, they want to nationalise Queensland's land-clearing laws. Gone is Labor's view of appreciating the farmers who produce food and fibre. Mr Burke interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 They want to nationalise land-clearing laws—that's what I said, Member for Watson. You might like to pay a bit of attention. What you people want to do is take on Greens preferences and ignore our farmers—here instead: a tax on tradies and a tax on our farmers. When our farmers and our tradies wonder why it has all happened, wonder why their industries have been destroyed, they'll say, 'The butler did it.' Schools 33 14:59 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. This Liberal government has cut $14 billion from public schools— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! Ms PLIBERSEK 83M money that would have paid for things like literacy and numeracy programs and extra support for kids who really need it most. Ms Henderson interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The member for Corangamite is right: you can't hear because all her colleagues around her are interjecting. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Well, I'll tell you what, I can't hear, so the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is going to begin her question again. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M My question is to the Prime Minister. The Liberal government has cut $14 billion from public schools—money that would have paid for things like literacy and numeracy programs and extra support for the kids who need it most. After six years of cuts, chaos and neglect, why should Australian families believe anything this Prime Minister says about education? 15:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I don't know which would be more concerning if a Labor government were elected: the member for Sydney sitting on the National Security Committee of Cabinet or on the Expenditure Review Committee. Maths is certainly not the member for Sydney's strong suit—nor is geography, for that matter—because what the member for Sydney has done is come in here and do what the Labor Party always does before an election: speak total mistruths to the Australian people. It may be of some interest to the member for Sydney that recurrent funding from the Commonwealth government for government schools—state schools—from 2013 to now has increased by 57 per cent. Only under the member for Sydney's arithmetic would an increase in funding of that order be constituted as a reduction. But it gets better than that. The forecast in our spending plans is to increase funding for schools in her own electorate of Sydney by 60 per cent. So how does the member for Sydney parade herself around the country, pretending to be someone of economic competence, which is quite a stretch, even in the Labor Party, when these most simple issues of arithmetic are beyond her? Under our government, under our economy, where we have put in place the processes and policies to support Australians to go out there and work hard and make the economy strong, we have record funding of state schools and independent schools, and that record funding increases out into the medium term. So I say to the Australian people: don't be swindled by the mistruths of the Labor Party. Do you remember what they said before the last election? They said we were going to sell Medicare. Today, Medicare has the highest level of funding and the highest level of bulk-billing in Australia's history. Under our government, Medicare has never been stronger in this country. Under the Labor Party, all you will get is falsehoods and mistruths. Don't be conned by Labor. Economy 34 15:02 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations. Haven't the LNP and ALP's free markets seen exports skyrocketing? The motor vehicle industry has been exported. Clothing and footwear have been exported. Petrol has been exported. Whitegoods have been exported. Half the seafood, pork and vegetable industries have been exported, as has 25 per cent of our electricity. Coalminers' and power workers' jobs have gone to Chinese solar factories. Minister, is there going to be a royal commission? To meet imports, haven't we sold 83 per cent of our minerals, 93 per cent of our coal seam gas, our airports, our coal ports and the five biggest farms in the land? It is corporate colonisation. Are the ALP and LNP on the take or just plain stupid? 15:03 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. Respectfully, I would say the answer to his question is no. But I have to say, as this is my last week of question time, that there are many things that I am going to miss about this place, and one of the things that I will miss is the questions from the member for Kennedy. He has a wonderful way of combining Aussie vernacular with haiku poetry. So I'm going to do my very best to address the theme of his question, which is the Australian economy and the coalition's plan for our economy. The coalition's economic plan for our economy is delivering lower taxes, a growing economy and, of course, a record number of jobs in this country. And I'm proud to report to the House that we have a record number of Australians in work now, more than at any other time in our history. We have, under our economic stewardship, seen more than 1.2 million jobs created in this country, and the majority of those jobs have in fact been full-time jobs. And I'm very proud to be able to report to the House that, over the past 12 months, we have seen around 300,000 jobs created and, of those jobs created, three-quarters of them have been full-time jobs. It is a great credit to the economic plan that we have put in place which has seen that happen. We have also seen unemployment drop now to a number that has a '4' in front of it: 4.9 per cent. Again, it is due to the hard work and effort of the coalition team on this side of the chamber—a team that, of course, has lowered taxes for small and medium-sized enterprises so that they can invest in their businesses and so that they can employ fellow Australians. In fact, 98 per cent of all businesses in this country are small and medium-sized enterprises, including farmers, and they employ around seven million Australians. Part of our economic plan has been to deliver free trade agreements that open up new export markets for those farmers, for those small and medium-sized enterprises. Free trade agreements with China, with South Korea, with Japan and with Hong Kong; closer economic relations, of course, with Singapore, with India and with Indonesia; and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are all delivering so that we can see new markets available to people who are working hard here in Australia. He asked about electricity prices. I'm sorry to say that we have seen in recent times that there is a plan for higher electricity prices, and it is those opposite who want to bring in a plan for a carbon tax 2.0. (Time expired) Internet Content 34 15:07 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher My question is to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General please update the House on what the government is doing to protect Australians online? And what is it doing to hold social media companies to account? 15:07 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce As the member is aware, the utterly tragic events in Christchurch demonstrated that the tools that can now be used by terrorists to spread fear, violence and messages of fanatical hate are not limited, very sadly, to guns. The role that social media, and in this case particularly Facebook, played in those tragic events is one that deserves scrutiny and condemnation and a response from this parliament. That's particularly the case because the abject failure of social media, and particularly the platform of Facebook to properly control the content on its own platform, where Facebook makes enormous profit in the business of content provision, is something that needs attention and a response. Previous events have included, for the benefit of the House: in March 2017, Facebook broadcast live the sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl in the United States by multiple assailants; in April 2017, Facebook broadcast the murder in the United States of 74-year-old Robert Goodwin, and the murder was able to be viewed on Facebook for three hours; and Facebook is also responsible for the showing of two videos of a man in Thailand killing his 11-month-old daughter, which were available for 24 hours before being removed and were viewed over 370,000 times. In specific relation to the Christchurch footage, which depicted astonishing violence of the most atrocious type—motivated by, as we know, and designed to spread fanatical far-right extremism—the footage started in a live stream broadcast at 1.33 pm and it live streamed for 17 minutes until 1.50 pm. The originally posted footage continued to be available, viewed, downloaded and forwarded until 2.40 pm, some 72 minutes after it started live streaming. Notwithstanding that a complaint had been received by Facebook through its own mechanisms on its own platform at the 29-minute mark, Facebook offered no information to the Prime Minister last week in a meeting and offered no evidence or indication that they took any proper notice or action, even on the complaint available on their own system at the 29-minute mark. In fact, it appears that Facebook did precisely nothing until the intervening event of New Zealand police contacting Facebook at 2.31 pm, 63 minutes after the live streaming commenced. The only thing perhaps more concerning than the abject failure by Facebook to control the content of its own platform is the legal fact that there is not any sufficient recourse for this parliament if such a failure occurs in the future in Australia. Content providers and hosts can no longer be reckless as to the presence of that type of abhorrently violent material. The time to pass a law to make that so is this week, and the time to pass a law that says that content servers should suffer the most serious penalties for failing to expeditiously remove abhorrently violent material is this week. Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 35 DOCUMENTS Commonwealth Ombudsman 35 Presentation 35 15:11 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's activities under section 65(6) of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 for the period 1 October to 31 December 2017. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 35 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Australian National Audit Office 35 Presentation 35 15:11 The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the report of the Independent Auditor, dated 18 February 2019, on a performance audit of the review of the performance-statement audit methodology of the Australian National Audit Office. Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018. Auditor-General's Nos 29 to 32 of 2018-19 35 15:11 The SPEAKER 00APG I present Auditor-General's reports Nos 29 to 32 for 2018-19. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018. DOCUMENTS 35 DOCUMENTS Presentation 35 15:11 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 35 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Climate Change 35 15:11 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Port Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure to deliver lower pollution, lower power prices and a stronger economy through real action on climate change. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:12 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide This matter is definitely one of public importance. At the end of yet another angry summer, as the community are telling all members of parliament that they expect their national parliament to do so much better, there couldn't be a matter of public importance more deserving of debate in the parliament this afternoon. There is a surge in community consciousness and expectation around climate change that I've not seen since 2007 at the earliest. I know that members opposite are hearing this as well. It's why so many of them are rebadging themselves as moderate Liberals. It's why so many of them are conducting pre-selection battles between the Left and the Right about climate change policy. People all around the country are seeing the impacts of climate change, have seen them right through this angry summer and are asking the question: why, after six years of this government, are we going backwards? Australians know; they've heard from the scientists that 2018 was one of the five hottest years on record around the world—not an El Nino year, so quite outstanding in meteorological terms—the other four being 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014. Australians have seen the angry summer unfold over the course of the last few months. We've just been told it was the hottest summer on record. The bureau only released its data over the last several hours that this March was the hottest March on record. In South Australia, my home state, we had the hottest summer on record, the hottest month on record and the hottest day on record. Two hundred and nine weather records were broken over the course of this summer. There were floods in places that don't usually flood. There were fires in places that don't usually burn. The Australian community understand that climate change is unfolding around them, while this government does absolutely nothing. They saw the reports from the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO just before Christmas—their two-yearly report on the state of the climate—outlining in great detail the impact that just one degree of warming is already having on our vulnerable continent, which already pushes us to the limits of human tolerance: an extended and a more intense fire season; structural reductions in stream flow and rainfall in our prime agricultural regions like the Murray-Darling Basin and the south-west of Western Australia; sea level rise accelerating because of the dramatic acceleration in the melting rates, particularly of the Greenland ice sheets. All these records and evidence have been rejected by the inaction of those opposite. This is also reflected in the scientific advice that we've received over the last 12 months at a global level. The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, confirmed that, with two degrees of global warming—too often regarded as a relatively safe level of global warming—more than 99 per cent of the world's coral reefs will be destroyed, including the Great Barrier Reef and Ningaloo. With just two degrees of global warming, the World Bank tells us—and the member for Kennedy will be interested in this—global cereal production will be reduced by 20 per cent. On a continent like Africa, which is expected to experience almost all of the net population growth around the world over the next few decades, cereal production would be reduced by 50 per cent. Yet, against all of this evidence, this government has done nothing, and we have gone backwards on every single indicator on climate change and energy policy. Pollution has started to go up. Renewable energy investment in the first 12 months of the member for Warringah's prime ministership collapsed by 88 per cent—a cause for celebration, I'm sure, by this Minister for Energy, who has built a career opposing renewable energy. We are now the only country in the OECD that doesn't have fuel efficiency standards. We have the lowest uptake of electric vehicles in the OECD. It's good enough for the United States, good enough for Canada and good enough for the UK, Japan, Western Europe, China and so many other nations of the world, but apparently not good enough for this coalition party room to agree upon. They cannot agree on a single serious measure being adopted around the world on climate change—not a single measure. I will go back to the issue of two degrees Celsius. The advice from all of the experts and scientists is that our position on emissions reduction is the minimum position consistent with keeping global warming below two degrees—net zero emissions by the middle of the century, and a 45 per cent cut in emissions by 2030. Even a 45 per cent cut will still use up more than three-quarters of Australia's remaining carbon budget between now and 2050, but it is the minimum position consistent with the responsibility that our generation of Australians around this country has to look after the interests of our children, our grandchildren and generations beyond. That is why we are taking the right position to this election—an election that we expect, in significant part, will be fought on climate change policy. Yesterday we announced the most comprehensive climate change action plan ever taken to a federal election by a major party, building on the energy policy announcements that we made last year; building on our 50 per cent commitment to renewable energy by 2030, which independent modelling says will create 70,000 additional jobs; and building on the commitment we have to help households tap into new technology like household batteries—a $200 million program to assist 100,000 households purchase household batteries to complement the two million sets of solar panels we already have on Australian household roofs, to bring down power prices after power bills have gone up and up under this government and to start to make their contribution to improving the environment. We have the moderate Liberals faction walking out on a climate change debate in this parliament because they are so ashamed of what this energy minister and all of his many predecessors in the climate change and energy portfolio have done to this country's record on looking after the interests of our children, our grandchildren and beyond. The policy we announced yesterday also builds on our visionary hydrogen policy, which the member for Shortland particularly worked on so hard over the last few months. We are going to hear from him and from the member for Bass, who has also been a strong advocate of Tasmania's place—particularly northern Tasmania's place—in the hydrogen economy of the future, an economy in which Australia can be a leader and create, like renewable energy, thousands and thousands of jobs. This is an industry that the government's Minister for Resources and Northern Australia said is decades away. But everyone who has looked at this industry understands that this is a jobs and investments boom opportunity for a country like Australia. This week we announced policies to bring down industrial pollution among the 250 biggest polluters in the Australian business community by putting in place the National Energy Guarantee—by continuing the safeguards mechanism that was introduced under Malcolm Turnbull, a policy developed by Tony Abbott and continued by the current Prime Minister—in the hope that, once the people occupying these ministries move on to whatever they are going to move on to, there might be a hope for the sort of bipartisanship that has acted as a foundation for serious action on climate change in every other democracy that is dealing with this issue around the planet. We have also announced the first ever electric vehicle policy in this country, to deal with the fact that we rank last on electric vehicle uptake in the OECD. We are the only OECD country without fuel efficiency standards. We have to change that. So what did we get in response from this government? Like Pavlov's dog, all of those opposite pull out the old 'member for Warringah playbook', a carbon tax—a war on lunch boxes, a war on meat pies! Sausages are going up! Ten years ago the premium end of the meat market was under attack; this year it's the smallgoods! There won't be any night-time sport. Never mind that, even under the carbon price mechanism, 99.99 per cent of products marketed by Woolworths did not change one jot; even under the so-called carbon tax, 99.9 per cent of grocery items did not change in price whatsoever. This is all they've got. After 5½ years of inaction that has seen jobs and investment collapse, pollution go up and Australia move to the bottom of the pack on every possible index in this area, all they've got is the tired old scare campaigns that the member for Warringah came up with. The Australian people aren't going to put up with this for much longer. They've seen the impacts of climate change and they want a government that is committed to taking action in the interests of our children. 15:22 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume The MPI mentions 'lower power prices', but I haven't heard a word from the member for Port Adelaide about lower power prices, because he doesn't want to talk about the costings from yesterday's policies. He doesn't want to explain to the Australian people what the impacts will be. We know the impacts though. I'm going to come back to those impacts and I'm going to watch you squirm as I describe the impacts of your policies on the Australian people—on tradies, on families, on hardworking small businesses. But before I do that, I want to talk about lower power prices and keeping the lights on—something that the shadow minister and those opposite don't seem to want to talk about. We understand that Australians have been struggling with the cost of living. We understand that the governments in South Australia and Victoria, with their reckless targets, have not been able to keep the lights on. With that in mind, we have taken action on lower power prices and keeping the lights on. Our plan for fairer, more affordable and reliable power includes a price safety net to protect customers—a price safety net under the default market offer. We saw, under pressure from the government, the big energy companies reduce their standing offers on 1 January—$200 in New South Wales, $313 in Victoria, $272 in South Australia and $175 in south-east Queensland. But we need them to go further. The most vulnerable customers are the ones who deserve this most because they are paying a loyalty tax to the big energy companies who do the wrong thing. From 1 July, there will be price caps in place for those standing offers, and that will mean savings of up to $174 for customers on flat rate tariffs, $218 for residential customers on controlled load tariffs and almost $1,000 for small businesses. Those opposite wouldn't understand this. None of them have worked in a small business. But we do understand that. A thousand dollars is a big deal. It is a big deal for people who work in small businesses. On top of that, we are driving new supply into the marketplace, putting $1.4 billion into Snowy 2.0—a battery for Australia with a cost of storage equal to a fiftieth of a Tesla battery. This will make sure we keep the lights on, because what we've seen is the governments in South Australia and Victoria setting insane renewable energy targets without understanding that, when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, you have to have backup—you have to have storage. And that's why we're building Snowy 2.0. On top of that, we saw only a couple of weeks ago a report coming from the Victoria Energy Policy Centre about the impact of manipulation of the market by the big energy companies. When the Hazelwood closure was announced, we saw what the major energy players did. AGL in particular doubled its bids into the market for its coal-fired power stations. It doubled them overnight. And the cost to Australian households and businesses was $3.5 billion in the next year. Legislation to prohibit that behaviour, to make that impossible, to make it illegal, was blocked by those opposite 12 times—12 times! You have to ask yourself: why is it that they stand on the side of the big energy companies? Why is it that they're backing the big energy companies? Might it be that the Queensland Labor government owns the big energy companies and withdrew $1.65 billion from their piggy bank last year to try to make ends meet? Even then they couldn't get to a surplus, because those who sit opposite don't do surpluses; they're not into them. But the Queensland government tried—$1.65 billion—and absolutely failed. Alongside that, when we arrived in government, we saw that we were 755 million tonnes behind where we needed to be to reach our 2020 Kyoto obligations. We had to find an abatement of 755 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in order to reach our 2020 obligations. That's the deficit those opposite left us with. Alongside the debt and deficits on the fiscal side, they left us a debt and deficit on the emissions side. We've turned that around, in recent years, from a 755-million-tonne deficit to a 367-million-tonne surplus—1.1 billion tonnes of turnaround on the emissions between 2010 and 2020. We will smash the 2020 Kyoto obligations. We will absolutely smash them, on the latest numbers from the department, by 367 million tonnes. We announced only a few weeks ago how we'll reach the remaining 328 million tonnes we need to achieve for the time period between 2020 and 2030, and we'll achieve that through the $3½ billion Climate Solutions Fund, including the energy efficiency initiatives worth over 50 million tonnes, and of course the Emissions Reduction Fund, with $2 billion committed, which will deliver 102 million tonnes of abatement. Those opposite announced yesterday not a plan but a tax. They refused to outline the costs of their tax. They want to send your dollars offshore—carbon credits for Kazakhstan! They want to tell you what sort of car you can drive. They want to tell farmers what they can do with their land. And they want to bring back the Rudd-Gillard carbon tax. We stand for Snowy 2.0; those opposite stand for carbon tax 2.0. Independent modelling by BAEconomics—an adviser to the Hawke-Keating governments and a contributor to three IPCC reports—shows that Labor's 45 per cent emissions reduction target will cost the economy $472 billion, will slash more than 336,000 jobs, particularly in the member for Shortland's electorate—that's where they'll go fastest—will cut the average wage of a worker by $9,000 and will increase wholesale electricity prices by more than 58 per cent. That's alongside increases in the price of cars, fuel, food and everything else that uses energy. The sad reality is that, when you want to whack a tax on energy, everything that has energy in it costs more. That is the reality: everything that has energy in it costs more. The 2016 Centre for International Economics report, which looked at Labor's policies on the vehicle side, concluded that an average vehicle would increase in cost by up to $5,000. They're not explaining that to the Australian people, nor are they explaining what this means for the average Australian's car. A Toyota HiLux, the most popular vehicle in Australia—certainly in my electorate it is very popular, and I'm sure it's popular in the electorates of a number of people behind me—emits 200 to 240 grams per kilometre. What are we going to do? Are the tradies going to be driving Priuses? What's going to happen to the SUV? You would think that if you bought an electric vehicle you might get by, but it turns out—we did a bit of work on this earlier today—that a Tesla emits 178 grams per kilometre. So even a Tesla doesn't get there. So extraordinary is the shadow minister's policy that, when asked whether he was going to buy an electric car, he decided he wasn't going to answer the question. Well, he's quite right, because it's not going to reduce emissions. At 180 grams per kilometre, it's actually not going to help, but at least he understands that. He may, in the coming days before the election, fess up to the costs of your carbon tax, fess up to the costs of your policies and fess up to the impacts on the average Australian of your disastrous and absolutely inappropriate targets—the impacts they'll have on all of us. 15:32 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland What a pathetic effort from this generation's Bronwyn Bishop—talking with great potential but underdelivering every single time. I'm going to start with one simple question. This is a debate about climate change. Where is the climate change minister? She's back in witness protection. They rolled her out yesterday for a 20-minute press conference where the Minister for Energy wouldn't let her answer a question—mind you, I don't blame him after her performance—and they rolled her back into witness protection. Such is the commitment of this government to climate change that the Minister for the Environment doesn't turn up for the debate. That is the truth of how little this government takes climate change seriously. This is a debate about a carbon tax—sure—but there is only one carbon tax and that's their ridiculous Emissions Reduction Fund. They have spent $4 billion of taxpayers' money to pay polluters not to pollute. That is a carbon tax by any definition. Let's look at some of the projects. They're paying a goldminer $1 million to build a gas-fired plant that the goldminer says they would have built anyway. They're paying $2 million to Rio Tinto to put in a diesel generator that was commissioned before they opened their fund. They've already cancelled 28 per cent of the projects they're funding under the Emissions Reduction Fund. Malcolm Turnbull said that this fund, worth $4 billion now, is a fig leaf for doing nothing. That is their entire climate change policy: paying polluters not to pollute. Let's go to the so-called Fisher modelling. This piece of work, which should have been written on toilet paper, because that is the quality of that piece of work, puts the cost of storage at $200 a megawatt hour, despite the fact that Snowy Hydro says the cost of renewable energy, plus the cost of storage, is 70 bucks a megawatt hour. This so-called modelling says that the $263 carbon price will drive 50 per cent renewable energy. It ignores the land sector. It is utter rubbish. I say this to the government: if they are going to rely on that modelling, what does it say about their policy? Their policy, under this modelling, is a $92 carbon price and involves a $90 billion hit to gross national income. That is what their chosen modelling says about their policy. It is absolutely ridiculous! The absolute truth is the government do not care about taking action on climate change. Just look at the Prime Minister's contribution on this topic. Since entering parliament in 2007, guess how many times Prime Minister Morrison has mentioned climate change. Ms Butler 248006 How many? Mr CONROY 249127 Thirteen times in a 12-year parliamentary career! By contrast, he has mentioned 'Canberra bubble' 18 times. He's mentioned a combination of sharks, beer and McDonald's 14 times! No mention of Engadine, but mentions of sharks, beer and McDonald's. This is the level of commitment the government have to climate change: they don't even talk about it let alone take it seriously. Let's look at their magical plan to achieve their target. This is their magical plan. This is their magical spreadsheet. Look at this— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Shortland is warned on the use of props. Mr CONROY 249127 The Climate Solutions Fund. Malcolm Turnbull said it was a fig leaf. The battery of the nation, on its own business case, only works if you get 50 per cent renewable energy—gone. The electric vehicle strategy doesn't exist. The final one is 100 million tonnes on technology improvements and other sources of abatement. They might as well have labelled that column 'blind faith'—blind faith that they'll suddenly find 100 million tonnes of abatement through some other method. That is the level of the government's contribution to this debate on climate change. The truth is we have a concrete plan. It is a concrete plan that will cut emissions by 45 per cent; a concrete plan that will lower power prices; a concrete plan that will deliver at least 86,000 jobs in renewable energy and hydrogen; a concrete plan that will make a strong contribution to international action on climate change; a concrete plan that says to our children and our grandchildren, 'You count, you matter, we take your future seriously and we will do something about it.' By contrast, we have a reactionary government only interested in short-term politics, who history will condemn as horrible, horrible people that did not care about their kids' future. (Time expired) 15:37 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I must say that this is an interesting topic for those opposite to choose. The issue of a changing climate is a very big one and even bigger for the government of a small country to influence. Everyone knows that if Australia were to cut its emissions entirely, the planet's climate would not be altered. This would represent an enormous destruction of our quality of life and see the end of Australia as a world leader in anything. Climate change is a global issue and one that this Liberal-National government is acutely attuned to. We are going to meet our Paris targets in a canter, doing so without the extensive job losses that a carbon tax would deliver under a Labor government. We are doing our bit as a nation and will continue to do so in an entirely responsible manner. So why do those opposite raise this topic this week? I'm afraid it's the old magician's trick: distraction. Those opposite simply don't want us to talk about tonight's budget, because it's going to open a wound they can't handle. Labor are terrified today of accidentally uttering the s-word—surplus! I can understand their reluctance. I wouldn't want to discuss something my side of politics had failed to deliver in the past 30 years. It must be a very sore point indeed. I wonder whether those opposite have ever wondered what it takes to deliver a surplus. I'm not sure that they would have. I am not the world authority on government budgets, but I do know a bit about balancing books. If you are in government and want to deliver a surplus, I'll tell you a couple of things that you don't do. You don't squash your revenue by introducing $200 billion in extra taxes on the economy that supports the nation. You don't demonise the resources sector that puts the food on the table for thousands of Queensland families and for state and federal governments. You don't skimp on delivering real job-creating infrastructure. You don't run off on vanity requests designed to satisfy the do-gooders in the almond latte belt, at the expense of the livelihoods of the lifters of our nation, who bend their backs and produce something. And you don't write bogus cheques with borrowed money for programs with uncertain outcomes. Deputy Speaker, you may have heard that list and thought to yourself, 'Hey, these are all things that Labor do,' and you'd be correct. You'd also be correct to remember it was way back in 1989 when Labor last produced a budget surplus. Many in the gallery today, and even some in the staff ranks in this place, wouldn't remember that event. It has been a long time. And so we come back to Labor's ridiculous failure on climate change. Those opposite no doubt think they are striking a blow by talking about renewable targets, electric cars and stopping emissions. This is not a climate plan; it is a climate tax, pure and simple. We already know that Labor's 45 per cent emissions target was going to result in a $9,000 hit to wages and more than 300,000 out of a job and that it was going to see wholesale electricity prices go up by 58 per cent. Now we know it will cost even more. Labor's vanity target could leave Australia $35 million poorer. I wonder whether those opposite are starting to realise why they never deliver budget surpluses. Yesterday's announcement by those opposite reeks of the lack of economic sense and the arrogance that we have come to expect from that side of politics. To think that one of our nation's leaders would pin his hopes to what fuel people will use in their cars is laughable. Has the Leader of the Opposition ever driven through Central Queensland? Communities like Middlemount, Dysart and Clarke Creek are not quite as close together as Canberra and Queanbeyan. Has he ever had to wait a week for power to be reconnected after a storm? These are the realities for many in my neck of the woods, and until such time as technology catches up with their needs Central Queenslanders need to keep the right to choose the vehicle that best suits them. I'm certainly not anti EV—it's quite exciting technology. I just can't see that those opposite have thought of all Australians when developing their policy. The saddest thing of all is that our hardworking coalminers have lost their jobs. After our farmers and graziers have had their production cut back to primitive levels and after households have been forced to disconnect from the power grid, it would all be for nothing. All of these measures put together won't make a jot of difference to the temperature of the planet. This is why Labor's plan is such a ridiculous one. It is tied up with spending money and signalling virtue instead of actually delivering outcomes. Those opposite would rather ignore the truth than keep our economy strong so we can better ride out whatever blips come across our radar as a nation. This Liberal-National government is certainly not about to follow every whim of those opposite, and I'm proud to be part of a team that can get on with the job of creating jobs and, at the same time, looking after the environment. (Time expired) 15:42 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman I rise to speak on Labor's plan for swift, comprehensive action on climate change, and I congratulate the member for Port Adelaide for the wonderful work he has done in his portfolio and in compiling this plan. We are experiencing a climate emergency. The year 2018 was one of the five hottest years on record around the world. The other hottest years were 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014. There's a pattern here. In Australia, we experienced the hottest summer on record. Time and time again we are faced with statistics, reports and damning evidence of the results of this government's inaction on climate change. Under the coalition, we've seen six years of chaos and uncertainty—six years in which the climate emergency has worsened, putting us in a position where urgent action is required. The member for Warringah is, all of a sudden, a convert to the Paris accord. The member for Dickson, suddenly, is not wanting to fund any new coal-fired power stations. But this is not action; this is desperation. Not a day passes when a constituent doesn't raise their concerns with me regarding climate change. From door-knocking residents, from street stalls, from talking to young kids at schools, from environment groups coming to see me in my office, from family and friends and through the hundreds and hundreds of emails I receive, I know that this is a key issue for those in my community and those around this country. It is one that people, even schoolchildren, feel compelled to take to the streets for. We stand here today to say that enough is enough. We cannot continue to have governments that ignore the science surrounding climate change, deny the reality of the emergency we are faced with and refuse to take action. Australia is screaming for leadership. It needs a government with a plan to reduce emissions while ensuring that we look after affected workers and communities—a plan to grow the economy, cut pollution and ensure that our future generations are left with a clean, healthy and safe environment. I am so proud to stand here today as a member of the Labor Party, a party with a plan. A Shorten Labor government will take leadership on climate change. Labor's policy announcements yesterday were groundbreaking. They represent a comprehensive action plan that sets us on a path to meeting our global targets, cooling our environment and resetting Australia on a sustainable pathway. We've recognised that we face an emergency and we have a plan. We will implement Australia's first national electric vehicle policy, which will tackle transport emissions by setting a national electric vehicle target and introduce vehicle emissions standards. We will reduce pollution over the decades by extending the pollution safeguard mechanism with real incentives for big polluters to reduce emissions. We will ensure that the federal government can intervene to put in protections to stop broad-scale land clearing and will develop and deliver a national forestry summit and forestry strategic plan. These policies are in addition to our already announced commitments such as investing in renewable energies and batteries. This will help reduce emissions and lower power bills. We'll double our original investment in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—that's $10 billion—and we will establish a just transition authority to plan and coordinate the impact of closures of coal-fired power stations. This is a vital part of the whole plan. We must bring those vulnerable communities along with us or the division created by any action will allow a vacuum to be created that can too easily be filled by those opposite us, who rely on scaremongering and climate denialism. Labor is the only party who will deliver on real climate action. As a party of government, we will have the best chance to ensure that Australia no longer lags behind the rest of the world. Our plan will deliver decisive action to reduce our emissions, ensuring we play our part in the global fight against the climate emergency. We have committed not to allow the use of Kyoto credits to cheat Australia's way to meet the Paris targets. Instead, we will deliver strong policies that will ensure we do meet those targets genuinely. Some say our targets are not high enough or good enough. But, last time we had that argument, we lost the opportunity to have a CPRS scheme, one that would have been in place for 10 years by now. Targets are there to be achieved and beaten. Nothing is stopping us going above and beyond. The key is to start urgently. My office is decorated with knitted corals that have been sent to me by people worried about the Great Barrier Reef. My walls are covered in postcards by children worried about the oceans. My bookshelves are full of climate research sent to me by researchers, and my inbox is full of emails from people worried about the future. I am glad to be a member of the Labor Party who will deliver for these people. (Time expired) 15:47 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I can understand the concern of many people around the challenges of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and concern around climate change. Having studied climate change and climate science, as a qualified carbon accountant, I've worked firsthand to deal with many of these challenges and what Australia can do. But I also look at it as an incredible opportunity to transition towards a sustainable future for Australia and jobs, to create the opportunities and to devise opportunities to innovate and to deliver for the Australian people, to deliver an environmental solution to so many of the challenges we face—because we on this side can see that the future is going to be awesome. What we're doing is being part of the solution and leading the change. The member for Barker rightly made the point that what we need is modern Liberal vision for Australia in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and confronting climate change. What we need is modern Liberal leadership for Australia to make sure that we can turn plans into action. And that's what we're doing. We are delivering our Paris targets. The best indicator of future success is what you've done in the past. We have managed to meet our Kyoto targets by 128 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases, and we'll double it by 2020. And, of course, we are on track to meet our Paris targets as well. The Climate Solutions Fund will continue on the early success of the ERF, and we're providing an additional $2 billion to cut two-thirds of the nation's emissions in the non-energy sector to deal with things like agriculture, land use, management and transport energy. Emissions reduction through this method is more than half the cost achieved through Labor's failed carbon tax. We have Snowy 2.0, through which we're building the baseload renewable energy infrastructure Australia needs. The Snowy hydro power station was a critical project for the development of reliable renewable energy to secure Australia's energy grid in the past, and we are reinvesting in it today for its strategic importance as the battery of the nation, located between Melbourne and Sydney, to increase its contribution to Australia's energy baseload, particularly for households and industry. We have Marinus Link and are stopping energy waste by having Tasmania's hydro power, which is a critical part of the energy grid, deliver baseload renewables to the mainland. A second interconnector from Tasmania to the mainland will supply cheaper, reliable baseload power. We have the national electric vehicle strategy. Transport use is changing, and Australia needs a unique solution for our unique situation. Australians have always relied on cars as part of transport solutions because of the country's low density and distances. We are developing a strategy to reduce emissions from cars and freight to drive the adoption of new technology and deliver a comprehensive solution to meet Australia's needs. We have the National Energy Productivity Plan. We need workable solutions to cut around 90 per cent of energy consumed by industry. Of course, that will deliver economic dividends and competitiveness as well. Our productivity plan is designed to reduce Australia's industry energy demands and cut consumption by 40 per cent by 2030 through practical measures such as efficient air conditioners and white goods and new environmental building standards. We have the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which invests in renewable solutions: $10 billion is available to invest in renewable challenges, including new energy investment, increasing energy efficiency, reducing energy demand and the repurposing of energy resulting from waste. We have ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. Australia can lead the world in sectors where we are competitive. The $2 billion available through ARENA provides finance for innovation in sectors where Australia can grow industries that can compete with the world, ranging from biofuels through marine energy generation and solar to energy storage. What we have is a target, a plan and a road map to get there. What we will deliver is a plan, a target and a road map to get there. Compare that to the plan that our opponents have. They say 'plan', but it is an aspirational target with no way of getting there. It is like saying, 'I want to find my way to Darwin,' and then spending the next three months trying to pretend that somehow you have got a traffic map. You've got no idea how to get there and you've got no consequence. You just want to talk the talk; you are not interested in walking the walk. What this government does is walk the walk. It matches its plan against practical solutions which will take Australia forward and provide the modern Liberal leadership that this country so desperately needs. 15:52 Mr HART 263070 Bass Tasmanians are not afraid of clean, green renewable energy. It is part of our industrial heritage. It's part of our state identity, our history. We understand hydroelectric generation, our world-class wind resource and the advantages of small- and large-scale solar. Our world-leading Australian Maritime College, the AMC, leads research on wave and tidal energy research. In the national context, we have much work to do to repair the damage and division around energy created and/or perpetuated by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. That work can commence under a Shorten Labor government if elected. A Shorten Labor government will reduce pollution, invest in renewable energy and take real action on climate change to ensure that we hand a better deal to the next generation. After six years of chaos, uncertainty and rising pollution under the Liberals, Australians need stability and certainty on climate change policy. That's what our plan delivers. Last week, I welcomed the member for Shortland and shadow assistant minister for climate change and energy to Launceston to announce the potential of a clean, green industrial process for the production of hydrogen in northern Tasmania, with an immediate commitment to a feasibility study of $250,000 towards hydrogen production in Northern Tasmania. The study will identify the best opportunities for northern Tasmania to be part of a supply chain in the globally massive industry, a $232 billion global juggernaut. Labor have committed $1.1 billion of funding to our national hydrogen strategy to develop a hydrogen industry in this country. Tasmania is well placed to tap into that industry. We have three distinct advantages in Tasmania: boundless renewable energy with some of the world's best wind resources, access to water and power through our hydro system and a deepwater port to transport that hydrogen product to Japan and South Korea. This opportunity could produce thousands of jobs for Northern Tasmania within my electorate. We already know that Tasmania has been and should be a centre of excellence when it comes to advanced manufacturing. Hydrogen would be another great manufacturing industry in Northern Tasmania where Tasmania would help to decarbonise the rest of the world. The development of the hydrogen industry in Australia is one part of Labor's plan for ensuring Tasmania capitalises on the benefits of Australia's transition to renewable energy. Labor's plan will tackle climate change to keep the economy growing by investing in renewable energy, boosting clean transport and infrastructure, working in partnership with business and supporting trade exposed industries to keep Australian businesses competitive, helping the land sector to cut pollution whilst giving farmers and the forestry industry new opportunities to earn income, and developing Australia's first national strategy on climate change and health to address the growing health impacts and risks of climate change. This is in stark contrast to those opposite. The government has failed to deliver lower pollution, failed to lower power prices and failed to strengthen the economy through real action on climate change. Theirs is a party of climate sceptics who are absolutely hopelessly divided on climate change. The Liberals have helped push up power prices by having 13 different energy policies, undermining investment in renewable energy, supporting taxpayer money for new coal plants and backing power privatisation. In fact, just one day after Labor announced the most comprehensive climate change action plan taken to a federal election by a major party in this country's history, the Prime Minister confirmed that the Liberals are proposing to spend taxpayers' dollars on new coal-fired power stations. This is a disgraceful display. After almost six years in government, the Liberals are still making up energy policy on the run, reaching their 13th energy policy in six years—a dangerous, reckless energy policy; an energy policy that adopts coal, which will have the direct effect of undermining Project Marinus and the Battery of the Nation, something all Tasmanians and, indeed, all Australians should beware of. This government doesn't understand renewable energy. It doesn't understand the fact that renewable energy offers a clean future for Australia. 15:57 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I think I've heard it all now. The member for Bass, if I heard him correctly, said Tasmania will decarbonise the world. Message to the member for Bass: Australia produces roughly 1.2 per cent of global emissions. If we were to reduce that to zero, per se, China on a per annum basis increases its emissions by more than what amounts to Australia's 1.2 per cent. So, if you think you're going to decarbonise the world from Tasmania, you keep fighting on, Charlie; you keep fighting on. The reality is that this is a global challenge, and that's why we have to play our part globally. What does 'our part globally' look like? It looks like meeting our international obligations. We met Kyoto 1, we're on target to meet Kyoto 2 and, as you have heard from the minister regularly, we will meet our Paris obligations in a canter. What those opposite are doing is participating in what can only be described as a gargantuan effort to virtue signal to the Left of the Australian constituency and say: 'Don't run off and vote for the Greens. We're your climate warriors. We will stand up.' But what they fail to say is what impact this will have. Remember that the Chief Scientist has said these actions will have no impact—that is, if we reduced our emissions to zero, that alone would have no impact globally. So what does it mean to everyday, ordinary Australians? We've heard of a $9,000 hit on wages. We've heard it will cost 336,000 jobs. We'll see electricity up by 58 per cent. Those are things we knew before we came here this week, but we now know a lot more. We don't have the kind of detail we should have, but we know it will cost a lot more. It could cost as much as $35 billion to buy international credits. That's money leaving Australia, going to overseas countries and funding their schools, their hospitals—the kinds of services that, quite frankly, Australians deserve and need. My challenge is to the member for Port Adelaide. I want to know what he's got against the workers at the Kimberley-Clark mill in Millicent in my electorate. This is a facility that produces toilet paper and tissue paper. It directly employs about 350 people in that community; indirectly, it's about 450. Now, before those opposite rush off and say, 'Oh well, they're not environmentally responsible,' this is an organisation that's been recognised for its achievements in environmental sustainability. They've won several third-party sustainability awards over the past five years, and many of those awards directly resulted from the work they did at Millicent. This is my point: the reality here is that if you impose your policies on this business, there is a very high likelihood that this business will be incapable of continuing to operate. If that happens, guess what? We're still going to consume toilet paper, we're going to still need tissues, but they will come from overseas. They'll come from jurisdictions that don't have the kind of environmental regulation that we have in Australia, so, in effect, in your ill-advised attempt to reduce carbon emissions you will send this industrial effort overseas. In return, we will obviously lose those jobs, both direct and indirect, and we will import that toilet paper and tissue paper. Leaving aside the carbon miles on a container load, if not a shipload, if not many shiploads, of toilet paper, this will be produced in countries that don't have the kinds of regulations we do. And so effectively what you'll be doing is exporting jobs and increasing emissions. That's the real impact that this policy will have, because not only will you do that—increase carbon emissions from the transport of goods to Australia, export those jobs and force this industrial effort into jurisdictions that are less environmentally sensitive—but you'll also impoverish Australia as a nation. And—light-bulb moment—only wealthy jurisdictions, only wealthy countries, can do stuff about their environment. Only wealthy jurisdictions can work to improve the environmental settings in their country. If you want to impoverish Australia, if you want to impoverish our fiscal position, then you will make it much more difficult for Australians—and Australia as a nation—to care about and take a really strong interest in their environment. 16:02 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I recently met with students who weren't taking time off school; they were taking time out of their weekend, on a Friday afternoon, to talk to me about why they care about climate change. These students from Colo High School, Katoomba High School and Bede Polding College put those opposite to shame. They knew more about climate change than anyone I have heard from on the opposite benches. And it was fact; it was science. They know that Australia is the highest emitter per capita in the industrialised world. That's a fact. They know that carbon pollution levels in Australia are rising. They know that the government's own data shows they've been rising since Prime Minister Tony Abbott and that Australia's on track to miss its own inadequate 2030 emissions reduction target of 26 per cent by a whopping 19 per cent. They know that 2018 was one of the five hottest years on record around the world, followed by 2007, 2016, 2015, 2014. It was the spring of 2013 that caused havoc in the Blue Mountains, in my electorate of Macquarie, with fierce and unprecedented bushfires. It's been a record in Australia this last year too, with 209 weather records beaten. These students know that the $2.25 billion spent by the government, by those on the opposite bench, have led to pollution going up, not down. They know that their own community of the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains faces not just fire but also floods that will be exacerbated by the changing climatic conditions. They know that natural disasters already cost the economy $18 billion a year. They can't vote yet, but they know something the government hasn't woken up to: climate change is real; it's a crisis and it requires urgent action. And RFS firefighters know it too. Farmers in Macquarie know it, grandparents in Macquarie know it, the insurance industry knows it and business knows it. Only Labor will deliver the urgent action that we know we need. Lower power prices are also a stress that families in my electorate face. They are stressing family budgets and creating anxiety for low-income people, and yet 13 energy policies and six years later all we're seeing from this government are power prices going up, up, up. Labor will change that. We can do both, and create jobs. In fact, 70,000 jobs in the renewables sector and 17,000 in the hydrogen sector—that's what our plan will do. Yesterday, the Labor Party announced what is the most comprehensive climate change action plan that's ever been taken to a federal election by a major party in this country's history. That's something we're very proud of. We've done the work, we've listened to business and we've listened to science. The target that Labor is taking to the federal election is the one we announced in 2015, for a 45 per cent emissions reduction cut by 2030 and net zero emissions by the middle of the century. It's not quite what my students would like to see, but it is a massive leap in the direction that we need to take. It's a position consistent with keeping global warming below two degrees. That's the commitment that another Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, signed Australia up to at the Paris climate conference in 2015. It is the absolute minimum commitment needed to discharge our responsibility to the kids from Colo high, Katoomba high, Bede Polding and every other school in my electorate. We're also committed to that 50 per cent renewable energy in our electricity mix by 2030. Renewable energy—and this might shock those opposite—is the cheapest form of new energy. It is also a fabulous job creator. We're committed to cheaper, cleaner power through renewable energy, and we'll do that with rebates for solar batteries for 100,000 households—$2,000 rebates to help build up the market for that product. These are batteries which will make a massive difference to people who already have solar on their roofs. We'll double the original investment in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation by $10 billion. That will support new technologies. We'll boost clean transport and infrastructure, which make up 20 per cent of Australia's emissions and are one of the fastest-growing sources of pollution. On our electric vehicle policy: we're the only OECD country currently not to have a policy. Those over there should be ashamed of that! Our policy will set a national electric vehicle target of 50 per cent for new car sales. (Time expired) 16:07 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax There's no doubt: our country faces challenges. It always has and it always will. How governments respond to those challenges defines who they are and defines their values. We already know what Labor's values are by virtue of their tax policies. We know very well Labor's plans around franking credits, negative gearing tax, capital gains and family trusts. Labor's only solution with respect to the economy is tax—tax, tax, tax. It's the only policy Labor relies on. In comes our challenge with climate change, and you would think that after nearly six years the Labor Party would actually have done thorough costings on its policy, but it has not. It has not; the opposition leader continues to stumble because he cannot answer the most basic of questions about what their climate change policy would cost. They haven't got a clue! What we do know, from independent modelling, is that their climate change policy is in fact nothing more than yet another tax. Let's take Tradie Joe. In a few years time, Tradie Joe might be very fortunate not to be one of the 336,000 people who lose their jobs as a result of Labor's energy policy. Tradie Joe survives. He's not one of those 336,000 who lose their job. Tradie Joe, unfortunately, is paying 50 per cent more in his energy bills—his electricity bills—because Labor's policies increased wholesale prices by 58 per cent and they were passed through. Tradie Joe also is incurring $9,000 less in his wages. He's paying $5,000 more for his ute. He has a pie for lunch. Even the pie is taxed because of Labor's energy policy. He has a can of Coke. The can of Coke is taxed because of Labor's energy policy. He wants to buy his wife a packet of Tim Tams but—guess what?—Labor has a Tim Tam tax! These are the policies that are already being laid out by the Labor Party. Tradie Joe is fictitious for one key reason. We need to ensure those opposite do not get hold of the treasury bench because we know that their policies, right across portfolios, represent a wrecking ball to this economy. If anybody is unsure about the impact and intent of the Labor Party with respect to energy, they should look at the state of Queensland, where they are in government. In the state of Queensland the Queensland Labor government controls about 80 per cent of energy, running a complete monopoly right across the supply chain outside of the south-east. If you look at your quarterly bill in Queensland you'll see how much you are being ripped off by the Queensland Labor government on an annual basis: $468. The Queensland Labor government are more than happy to ensure that reductions in wholesale prices, courtesy of the coalition federal government, are not passed on to consumers. They are more than happy to ensure that their inflated asset values are not written down so they can keep charging and ripping off customers. They are more than happy to do dodgy debt deals where the Labor government lend money to the Labor energy company, who in turn provide healthy dividends to the Labor government. That's the way they work. That's the way they operate. With anything to do with serious policy there's only one answer from the Labor Party: tax, tax, tax, tax, tax. Labor know nothing but tax, and that is why they hope to kill this economy. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The discussion has concluded. COMMITTEES 45 COMMITTEES Human Rights Committee 45 Report 45 16:13 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: Report 2 of 2019. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 by leave—Of the bills examined in chapter 1 of this report, 37 have been assessed as not raising human rights concerns as they promote, permissibly limit or do not engage human rights. The committee is also seeking further information in relation to 16 pieces of legislation and has considered 13 pieces of legislation on an 'advice only' basis. Chapter 2 of the report contains the committee's concluded examination of a number of pieces of legislation. The report contains a credible technical examination of the legislation within Australia's obligations under international human rights law. A number of the bills scheduled for debate this week have been considered by this committee in the current report, including in relation to: the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority; appropriations; the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme; counter-terrorism (temporary exclusion orders); and the NDIS worker screening database. I thank my fellow committee members for their continued service to the committee and engagement with this report. I also wish to thank the secretariat and the committee's external legal adviser, Dr Jacqueline Mowbray, for their invaluable assistance and support over the course of the parliament. With these comments, I commend report No. 2 of 2019 to the House. BILLS 45 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018-2019, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018-2019, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019 45

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018-2019

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018-2019

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

Second Reading 45 16:15 Dr PHELPS 008Z0 Wentworth Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of our time. If we don't get it right, our children will pay the price. We may already be paying the costs. Climate change and the environment are top-of-mind issues for the people in my electorate of Wentworth and also of great concern to Australians everywhere. This will be a climate change and environment election, and the time to act is now. Just this morning I met with Cassy Faux and Lauren McGrow, who were victims of the recent Tasmanian bushfires. When you also consider that there were floods in Queensland, prolonged drought, storms and a million dead fish at Menindee on the Darling River, with a dramatic drop in temperature following a period of very hot weather, it seems fair to say that we are seeing a rise in the prevalence of extreme weather events. I have spoken a number of times in this House about the need for urgent climate change action. The cost of inaction will be significant. An integral part of the climate argument is the impact on our environment. Today I would like to speak about the growing problem of ocean plastics. In the past fortnight we heard about a whale in the Philippines that starved to death, having ingested 40 kilograms of plastics. Forty kilograms is an enormous amount. This was a wake-up call to all of us that we need to take action to limit the amount of plastic that is dumped into rivers and oceans worldwide. The global population is living, working and vacationing along the coast. Coastal populations stand in the front row of the greatest plastic waste tide we have ever faced. According to Boomerang Alliance, globally 275 million tonnes of plastic waste is generated each year and in 2016 over nine million tonnes of plastic entered the world's oceans. Ocean currents have formed five gigantic, slow-moving whirlpools, where the plastic collects, called gyres. Most of the plastic debris sinks or remains in the gyres, but a significant percentage remains in oceans, where it is a threat to sea life, or washes onto our coastlines daily. I volunteered with Clean Up Australia this year. You could not miss the presence of plastic on our shoreline. CSIRO recently completed a survey that found that three-quarters of the rubbish along Australia's coast is plastic. Most of it comes from Australian sources, not the high seas. Debris is concentrated near our cities. CSIRO also commented that Australia is probably a net exporter of debris to some neighbouring marine regions and surrounding countries. That is not the sort of export reputation that we should have. Australians consume over three million tonnes of plastic products and packaging each year but recycle less than 10 per cent of the plastics we use in Australia. Litter comprises 60 per cent of all marine plastic pollution, including around 420 million plastic bottles, another 200 million of other pieces of plastic packaging, 180 million plastic bags, 10 million plastic products and over 11 billion synthetic cigarette butts. After sunlight photodegrades the plastic into small pieces, aquatic life and seabirds mistake these fragments for food and ingest them. It's estimated that globally over one million seabirds and over 100,000 mammals die every year as a result of plastic. These creatures die through ingestion, mistaking it as food, or from entanglement in plastic items. It's difficult to know the exact figures, but a 2012 report from the Worldwide Society for the Protection of Animals indicated that between 57,000 and 135,000 whales are entangled in plastic marine debris. Over 200 species are directly affected by marine plastic pollution, with 96 per cent of all marine biodiversity being vulnerable to the ingestion of these microplastics. While all plastic debris is dangerous to the environment, the threats escalate as plastic fragments into increasingly small pieces and enters the marine food chain and, in turn, our diet. These tiny microplastic particles are often mistaken as food, and, as latest research suggests, they are being ingested at very high levels. The CSIRO, for example, has found that 90 per cent of seabirds around the world have ingested plastic, and even plankton—the basic element of the marine food chain—has been observed ingesting microplastic. The prevalence of microplastic being ingested by our sea life is a major concern which has rapidly become one of the major threats to marine biodiversity. Humans are not immune from these effects. It is estimated that people who consume average amounts of seafood are ingesting approximately 11,000 particles of plastics each year. The Great Barrier Reef outlook report 2014 identified marine debris and plastics as major threats to the health of the reef. It was found that 683,000 items of marine debris were recovered within the marine park between 2008 and 2014. It's well known that plastics entering the world's oceans are having a huge impact on our marine life. But they also have far-reaching impacts on human health and on our economy. A UNEP 2014 report identifies that plastics finding their way into the world's oceans cost approximately $17.3 billion per year in environmental damage to marine ecosystems, and the total natural capital cost of plastics used in the consumer goods industry estimates at more than $99 billion per year. When the life span of products and packaging is taken into account, the annualised overall natural capital cost to the consumer goods sector is $35 billion, with the largest contributors being food, nondurable household goods, soft drinks and retail. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC, estimates that the cost to the tourism, fishing and shipping industries was $1.6 billion in our region alone. Local authorities have to bear the cost of cleaning up plastic litter from beaches, maintaining litter traps and bins and managing landfill. Managing waste is an enormous cost burden on local councils, who have diminishing options for recycling and eliminating plastic waste. The European Union is taking the initiative. Single-use plastic items such as straws, forks and knives, as well as cotton buds, will be banned in the European Union by 2021. In Germany, a new packaging law will come into effect on 1 January, which aims to improve recycling and reduce packaging waste. If we fail to clean up the plastic and don't stop the continued pollution of the oceans, we are facing the potential extinction of many sea life species and the interruption of the entire marine ecosystem, as well as a depletion of our precious food stocks. The establishment of a national environment protection agency would be a positive start. It is time to act now. I will be speaking about this subject at the upcoming Bondi Ocean Lovers Festival in April, and I encourage anyone who cares about our marine environment to attend. I urge the Australian government to take decisive action by developing policy and dedicating funding to combat this environmental threat. 16:22 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne As we head towards an election, it is worth remembering that we have seen six years of attacks from this government on Centrelink, on our social payment system and on people who are doing it the toughest. For six years, the government has punished people through Centrelink instead of supporting them. We've seen the disastrous robo-debt recovery program, the expansion of the cashless welfare card, outsourcing of staff to private companies like Serco, demerit points, Work for the Dole and, of course, the Community Development Program. And the rates of Newstart, youth allowance and other payments remain outrageously low. They lock people into poverty. In a country like Australia, we should have a fair and accessible system that provides people with a safety net when they need it. There's sometimes talk from those on the right that poverty is a choice. Poverty's not a choice; no-one would ever choose it. But I'll tell you what is a choice: punishing people and keeping people in poverty. That is a choice that this government repeatedly makes and needs to be held accountable for. As we debate the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018-2019 and await tonight's budget, I want to share with the House the stories of people in my electorate who, as a result of this government's decision to raise money not by going after the top end of town but instead by attacking those who are least in a position to be able to afford it, have faced the consequences of this government's failure. We've been contacted by almost 350 Melbourne constituents who've needed help with Centrelink recently. When my office receives calls from university educated constituents—let alone people whose first language isn't English—who want to raise their concerns because they can't understand or navigate the system, the situation is clear: Centrelink is breaking under this government. Melbourne constituent Bridget contacted my office after her claim for youth allowance, which she had made four months earlier, still hadn't been processed. She made the claim well before her university semester and was still waiting after the semester had finished. Bridget's a full-time student, but she was forced to work up to four days a week to cover her basic costs. She told my office that this had a huge impact on her studies and her health. She was forced to work when she wanted to focus on her studies. After my office contacted Centrelink, her claim progressed, but she was told by them that she was no longer eligible for youth allowance because she was earning too much. You don't process their claims, you force them to go to work and then you say, 'We're not going to give you any of your payments because you are earning too much.' My constituent was forced to work because her claim took more than four months to be processed, only to be told that the situation the government forced her into then excluded her from receiving the support that she needed. One constituent contacted my office after making a claim for Austudy that still hadn't been finalised more than three months later. She went without any income support from the government for more than three months, struggling to pay bills and rent, and couldn't work because her degree required her to do two 14-week full-time placements. So she wasn't in a position to be able to go and work. Another Melbourne constituent contacted my office after her disability support pension was cancelled in July last year without notice. She wasn't able to go to a service centre due to her disability and didn't have a phone. She spent 45 minutes standing in the freezing cold at a phone booth waiting on hold to speak to Centrelink, who then gave her the wrong information and didn't reinstate her payment. She was told her payment was cancelled because Centrelink wanted to transition her to the age pension, when, in fact, it was cancelled because Centrelink had sent a letter to the wrong address. She told my office she'd been living off bread and tea for two months and that she'd just run out of tea. She had been sent threatening letters to vacate her residence because she was so behind on rent and she was at risk of having all her belongings sold because she couldn't continue paying for storage. This should not be happening in Australia. Another constituent, Alex, contacted my office after his claim for the disability support pension was refused. His appeal had been going on for more than one year. In the meantime, his disability meant that he couldn't get work, and the government's payment for Newstart allowance is so low that, after he pays his monthly rent of $1,250, he has less than $200 per month to pay for his bills and food. That's more than 90 per cent of his income that goes on rent, but he doesn't have any options because he can't access affordable housing. Alex told my office that he uses the torchlight on his phone instead of turning on the lights in his house, because that is what this government is putting him through. He tells my office that he is only one step away from being homeless. With the government's new demerit points system, all it would take is one system error to see him miss a rental payment and be out on the street. These are just some of the stories from the people who live in Melbourne. Right around Melbourne and right around the whole country, people are getting screwed by this government. The truth is that people accessing Centrelink will never match the big donations to the big parties of the big banks and developers and coal companies, so they're seen as easy targets for budget cuts and punitive attacks. It is shameful that governments are failing people like this. We need to make governments serve the many, not just the powerful few donors. Whilst sharing these stories, I also want to acknowledge here in parliament the work being done by the Australian Unemployed Workers' Union, who are taking a stand for the right to social support and secure payments when we need them. Social support and secure payments when we need them are, of course, and should be, the right of all people in this country. They are informing Centrelink recipients about their rights and organising to change the system. This government might think that the system is working fine when we punish people rather than help them, but it is not. That is a broken system. The Greens will continue to fight for people's rights to gain proper support and to increase the single rate of Newstart and youth allowance by $75 a week—not put it under review but to increase it. We don't need more reviews. We know—the facts are in—that people are living so far below the poverty line that it is a barrier to their finding work and to their staying healthy and well. We must lift Newstart and youth allowance by $75 a week. Newstart hasn't increased in real term in decades. It is locking people into poverty. We need to change that and we will keep fighting until we do. The NDIS needs to be there for people who need it. The NDIS is the beginning of work that needs to be done so that people with disabilities can live a good life. But the NDIS needs to be properly resourced and its flaws need to be addressed so that it can provide people with the support they need. I want to share some of the stories of people who live in Melbourne who face difficulties accessing disability support through the NDIS. My office is receiving an increasing number of inquiries about the NDIS as it continues to roll out across Melbourne. We've heard from many constituents facing extremely long delays in accessing NDIS and from even more people who have been waiting months and months for a review of their plan to be completed. Melbourne constituent Lorraine contacted me when her NDIS package had been cut from over $40,000 for the year to just $9,000, placing her at serious risk of having to go into care without access to adequate supports. Lorraine requested an urgent review of her package and some five months later, and only after intervention from my office, Lorraine's review was finalised. Lorraine told my office that once her review was completed, with the same information the NDIS had the entire time, her package was increased from $9,000 for the year to up to $46,000 for just the six months remaining of her plan. She told my office that this process aged her significantly and caused her tremendous undue stress for almost half a year. We're happy to help Lorraine, but you shouldn't have to go to your MP to get your NDIS plan increased from $9,000 to $46,000 on the basis of information that the authority had for the whole time. We've also heard from parents of young children with autism who waited six months or more for their children's NDIS plans to be finalised, missing out on integral early childhood support. Six months is a long time in a child's life. If you have to wait that long you can miss out on integral early childhood support and that can push families to the breaking point. People can't see their draft plans before they're signed off, giving no opportunity for participants to argue for a better plan. Given this, together with a cap on staffing of 3,700 people, well under the Productivity Commission's recommended 10,000 staff, it is no wonder that people in Melbourne have to wait six months or more without access to vital support while their plans are inevitably reviewed. The NDIS needs as many staff as it needs to deliver that service. It is so important that the NDIS works for everyone. We'll keep working to make sure it's properly resourced. I want to acknowledge the important advocacy of my Greens colleagues Senator Jordon Steele-John and Senator Rachel Siewert, who have worked so hard for this. We've just had news this week of the success of the campaign for a royal commission into violence towards and abuse, exploitation and neglect of people with a disability. Congratulations to everyone who worked for this. Change can happen. Melbourne is a great place to live, but the things that make it liveable are under pressure, and that includes the cost of renting. Yesterday, a report from NATSEM showed that more than one in five renters in Melbourne were under significant rental stress, the highest rate for any electorate in the country. If you want an illustration as to why this is the case you need look no further than the real estate pages online during the course of last week. A rental listing was posted for a tiny apartment in Richmond in my electorate. Not only was it tiny—a one-bedroom apartment—but on the plan the kitchen was in the garage. To get into the house you had to walk through a hallway and through two adjoining doors, one either side of that hallway, and in that hallway was the bathroom. You had to walk through the bathroom in order to get to the other rooms. A kitchen in the garage, a bathroom in your hallway: how much was being asked for for that? $450 per week. It is unacceptable that in 2019 people are being forced to cook in a car parking space and pay $450 a week. Everyone who rents has a horror story about inspecting dodgy places like this, yet prices are sky-high and out of reach for too many. This week, one man came into my office after applying for 50 rental properties and being refused for each one. That is what is happening. People are applying for 50 rental properties and being refused. Over the last decade, rents in Melbourne have risen by, on average, about 4.9 per cent—over twice the rate of wage growth. According to last year's Anglicare rental survey, not one property in all of Melbourne is affordable for a single person on youth allowance or Newstart. If you're on the minimum wage, only 38 out of the 11,536 homes up for rent across the whole of metropolitan Melbourne are affordable. That is not just in my electorate but across the whole of metropolitan Melbourne. Out of over 11,000 places up for rent, only 38 are affordable if you are on the minimum wage. Even as the decades-long explosion in housing sales prices is coming to an end, reports indicate that rental prices are not falling and that renters are still facing the pressure. The rules are rigged. Government give tax breaks to investors to buy their fourth, fifth or sixth home, while renters are left paying for it. Young people are saddled with debt and living in the precarious world of short-term contracts and the gig economy. They are being sold out. The government will announce its budget and all its election plans, and you can bet your bottom dollar that it will do nothing to fix the rental crisis, just like it will do nothing to fix education or tackle the climate crisis or do anything to stand up to Senator Pauline Hanson and the right-wingers inside the government. It is absolutely time that we turf this mob out, but we need to have the guts to stand up and say, 'We need rent control in this country, like they have in other countries.' It is time for rent control and to cap rents. We tried to get action on this in Victoria, but the Victorian Labor government has said no. The Greens will keep fighting for rent control to tackle this crazy, out-of-control situation. Hopefully we can get the next government to change its mind, because young people are being sold out. There's a reason 50,000 students in Melbourne took to the streets to march to demand climate action. There's a reason. People are seeing this government and other governments around the world selling out their future. It comes in the form of the climate crisis, in the form of high household debt, in the form of graduating from university with a huge debt hanging around your neck and in the form of high rent. The Greens will stand up for young people and demand a better deal. The start of that is turfing this current mob out, and the next step is holding the next lot to account. 16:37 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm Climate change inaction has been the hallmark of both major political parties. It has underpinned chaos and political power plays for too long. For too long, words by both major parties have been just that: empty words, words they have used to pretend they care about climate action and policy, words which suddenly come to the fore with a pending election, words which find their way onto surveys, flyers and town hall robocalls, which are made at the taxpayer's expense. In the seat of Flinders, there is a proposed project by AGL. The project is this: a floating gas import facility on Western Port Bay at Crib Point, a beautiful part of the world. Concerned locals formed the Save Westernport group. They have worked tirelessly, including consulting both the major parties, to stop this project to build a floating gas import terminal on Western Port Bay. This floating terminal will be capable of importing liquefied natural gas from ships in Western Port Bay. Every time a shipment is delivered, the process would mean taking in sea water from the bay. The water, equivalent to 180 Olympic swimming pools a day, would be chlorinated, chilled and discharged back into the sea seven degrees cooler. An extension of this project is a 55-kilometre pipeline proposed from Crib Point Jetty. This pipeline would cut through internationally significant wetlands, private properties and Melbourne's food bowl. The Labor Party are supporting this and whilst their local candidate in the seat of Flinders sought permission from his party to say he doesn't like it, and he said this on a Facebook post, this is just that: words on a social media post that will probably find their way onto a few flyers. No way can he fight the major-party machine. He's just saying he doesn't like it. Nice try. Worse than that is the local member for Flinders, also known as the Minister for Health—also, remarkably and staggeringly, previously known as the Minister for the Environment. He has suddenly also done some Facebook posts and handed out flyers saying he's done robocalls—and he's blaming Labor. 'Stop AGL's project,' he says. There have been town hall telephone calls and he's issued incredible numbers of documents, again, at taxpayers' expense. On the side, he has said quietly to the Save Westernport group—that care passionately about this issue—that there's no way the Save Westernport group are going to succeed here. Countless locals have said to me: 'We just don't believe anything the member for Flinders says any more. It doesn't matter if it's in a brochure or on a robocall.' Having worked with the Save Westernport group, I am so proud to support decisive action in the form of a formal petition that requests the federal government of the day to stop this development and to protect the Western Port site. The Australian government of the day's specific role in wetland management and protection is established under the international Ramsar convention. The proposed AGL floating gas terminal in Crib Point is subject to federal government assessment and approval, which the state Labor Party have given support to, and processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The government of the day has the avenue to review this project and stop it under our international obligations of the Ramsar convention. This formal petition was brought to Canberra this week and we will continue to accumulate signatures. This is effective, constructive action. The train has left the station, in many ways, because of the support of the Labor Party and the implicit support of the member for Flinders, and the government, by turning a blind eye. They ignored their obligations under the Ramsar convention in relation to Toondah Harbour in Queensland. This is an avenue. This Ramsar convention says we can take this real action to protect our environment. As an Independent I believe in the power of the people, the local people, and this Save Westernport group have done an amazing job. They have done an amazing job. They don't want to see this floating gas facility destroy this beautiful part of the world where the sea is, where people swim, where people walk their dogs and where the flora and fauna of Australia are at their best. It would be a brutal blow to put a pipeline through marine wetlands of our beautiful country. The people in the seat of Flinders tell me they've been taken for granted for too long and their concerns about local issues are being ignored. They are tired of the combative politics and game playing purely for self-promotion and getting votes for the major parties. They want change. They want a representative with experience and commitment who genuinely wants to get things done for their local community. This AGL project has the potential to cause serious air, light, noise and water pollution, present fire hazards, negatively impact on property values and risk marine life and aquaculture. No-one I have spoken to in the local community across Flinders, particularly about this project, believes their local member anymore. Why should they? The member for Flinders, when he was the Minister for the Environment, is the man who approved Adani. The member for Flinders is the man who was a prime mover in ousting former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and deputy leader Julie Bishop. He's the man who felt that with the member for Dickson they would make a great duo of leadership. In fact, his role in destroying our environment, in not protecting our environment, as the minister for our environment has been incredible. He is the man who lied to the leaders of our country, who lied to his local community, and he's living a lie in relation to this issue. The people of Flinders feel their voice has not been heard and they are sceptical about the meetings which have gone nowhere and the sudden flurry of costly, meaningless pre-election flyers and forms designed purely to data-harvest and obtain contact details. That is not a real petition. That is to do data harvesting and write and send more flyers to people. The government of the day cannot shirk this responsibility, nor can it deny that it has the power to put a stop to the AGL development which the petition calls for. The Australian government's specific role in wetland management and protection is established under the Ramsar convention, and the proposed facility is subject to this assessment process. The petition gives the local community a voice in Canberra, a powerful voice to tell the government that they want effective action to stop this development. As an independent I believe in the power of the people. Climate change action must happen. Climate change is not only real; it is happening. We've seen it in Flinders. We've seen it across our country. A strong independent will bring back the balance, stop the lies and stop the empty words. Speaking of stop, we have to stop Adani. Australia does not have a social licence to go ahead with Adani, but both the major parties will pay lip service to that and say in one state they can't and in another state, yes, they will, depending on where the votes are. We have to support our children, the strike-for-climate leaders. They did an amazing job. These are the future generation. These are the people who we have to make sure we engage in climate change action now so we do not leave intergenerational debt in relation to our beautiful country and in relation to our climate and our planet. We need genuine action—no more words. I am so proud to support the local community and the broader Australian community on this critical issue of climate change action. The major parties have got to stop using it for sound bites in the press and to create their flyers come election time. We have to do real and serious action. We have to listen to the people. We have to listen to the stop Adani people. We have to listen to the strike-for-climate leaders. We have to listen to the students, to the younger generation. We have to listen to the save Western Port group. We have to save Western Port Bay. We have to stop AGL and companies such as this that are doing nothing more than wrecking our environment and absolutely fruitlessly destroying our environment for the sake of profits. Save Western Port group, I thank you and I stand with you in relation to this issue. I say the same to any person in this country who is saying that they want to protect our climate for future generations and to meet our international obligations: renewables are the future and we need business certainty in relation to reducing our emissions. We cannot invest in new coal-fired power stations and we must take climate change action now and critically. Thank you. 16:49 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I'd like to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2018-2019, the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018-2019 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019. These additional estimates appropriation bills seek authority from the parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for this financial year. Passage of the bills will ensure continuity of government programs, commencement of new activities agreed by the government since the 2018-19 budget and the Commonwealth's ability to meet its obligations for the 2018-19 year as they fall due. Details of the bills are contained in the additional estimates process, but in summing up I'd like to highlight three particularly important areas related to the delivery of the government's commitments that are supported by these bills. First: the bills include support for the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Second: they provide assistance for farmers and farm communities in drought. Third: they deliver critical enhancements to the security infrastructure of Australia's overseas diplomatic network. Once again, I'd like to thank all members for their contributions. I commend the bills to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 51 16:51 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018-2019 51

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2018-2019

Second Reading 51 Third Reading 51 16:52 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019 51

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

Second Reading 51 Third Reading 51 16:53 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Supply Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 51

Supply Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

First Reading 51 Second Reading 51 16:54 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $40.8 billion. The appropriations proposed in this bill are based on five-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriations. The 2019-20 estimates are broadly the 2018-19 base, adjusted for economic and program specific parameters, and the effect of decisions announced as part of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook or included in the 2018-19 additional estimates appropriation bills. Although supply bills can sometimes include front loading for agencies that have uneven spending needs over the year, this is not the case in 2019. The five-twelfths apportionment has therefore been applied strictly to all agencies. The supply bills also take into account terminating programs. The remainder of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriations are contained in the budget appropriations bills, which will be introduced separately. To support parliamentary scrutiny, the effect of both the supply bills and budget appropriation bills is incorporated in the 2019-20 portfolio budget statements, as was the case for the 2016-17 supply bills. The bill must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available to all entities from 1 July 2019, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery. I wish to emphasise that this bill seeks provision only to fund government expenditure on an interim basis until budget appropriation bills have passed. Consistent with convention, the supply bills do not include funding for budget measures. This arrangement allows for Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, or a similar bill, to be passed by the next parliament, if necessary. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio budget statements tabled in relation to the budget appropriation bills. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day. Supply Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020 52

Supply Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020

First Reading 52 Second Reading 52 16:58 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $4.8 billion. The appropriations proposed in this bill are based on five-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriations. The 2019-20 estimates are broadly the 2018-19 base, adjusted for economic and program specific parameters. Obviously, Supply Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020 provides for appropriations that are not for the ordinary annual services of the government, such as for capital works, for services and payments to states, territories and local governments, for the first five months of 2019-20. The supply bills also take into account terminating programs. The bill also establishes the debit limits for 2019-20 for general purpose financial assistance payments and national partnership payments. The debit limits in the bill reflect five-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 debit limit, with the remaining seven-twelfths to be included in the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020. The bill must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available to all entities from 1 July 2019, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery. As with Supply Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, this bill seeks provision only to fund government expenditure on an interim basis until budget appropriation bills have passed. This arrangement allows for Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020, or a similar bill, to be passed by the next parliament, if necessary. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedules to the bill and the portfolio budget statements tabled in parliament with budget appropriation bills. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day. Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 53

Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

First Reading 53 Second Reading 53 17:01 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 provides appropriations for 2019-20 for the operations of: the Department of the Senate; the Department of the House of Representatives; the Department of Parliamentary Services; and the Parliamentary Budget Office. This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the consolidated revenue fund of just over $101 million for parliamentary expenditure for the first part of 2019-20, broadly until the end of November. The appropriations proposed in this bill are based on five-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriations. The 2019-20 estimates are broadly the 2018-19 base, adjusted for economic and program specific parameters, and the effect of decisions announced as part of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook or included in the 2018-19 additional estimates appropriation bills. Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available to parliamentary departments from 1 July 2019, thereby ensuring the continuity of parliament's operations. As with the other supply bills, I wish to emphasise that this bill seeks provision only to appropriate money to fund government expenditure on an interim basis until budget appropriation bills have passed. And consistent with convention, supply bills do not include budget measure funding. This arrangement allows for Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020,or a similar bill, to be passed in 2019-20 by the next parliament if necessary. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio budget statements tabled in parliament with the budget appropriation bills. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day. Supply Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, Supply Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020, Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 53

Supply Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

Supply Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020

Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

Cognate debate.

Consideration resumed of the motion:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Third Reading 55 17:17 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Supply Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020 56

Supply Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020

Second Reading 56 Third Reading 56 17:18 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 56

Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

Second Reading 56 Third Reading 56 17:20 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Amendment Bill 2019 56

Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Amendment Bill 2019

Second Reading 56 17:21 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Amendment Bill 2019 makes amendments to the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018, commonly referred to as the FITS Act. The FITS Act created a registration scheme for persons undertaking certain activities on behalf of foreign government related entities, foreign political organisations and foreign government related individuals. This bill makes a number of changes to the existing law to close what are, in effect, loopholes in the existing Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme. First, the bill amends the definition of 'communications activity' in section 13 of the FITS Act to include people and companies who produce material on behalf of a foreign principal for the purpose of that information being communicated or distributed to the public. This addresses a gap in the current scheme. Under the existing definition, a foreign principal could pay an advertising agency to produce content and those ads could potentially run on national television without triggering registration or disclosure obligations under the FITS Act. The amendment to the definition of 'communications activity' addresses that gap. In the example I just gave, the advertising agency would be subject to registration and disclosure obligations under the FITS Act. Second, the bill would make a minor drafting clarification to section 14 of the FITS Act. Currently, section 14 provides that the purpose of the activity must be determined having regard to, among other things, 'the intention or belief of the person undertaking the activity'. The amendment would make it clear that the relevant belief is the person's belief about the intention of any foreign principal on whose behalf an activity is undertaken. This will ensure that, even if a foreign principal does not explicitly state that a particular activity is intended to influence a political decision, it will be relevant if the person undertaking the activity believes that to be the foreign principal's intention. Third, the bill amends sections 35, 37 and 38 of the FITS Act to address a number of gaps in the reporting obligations under the act. Currently, disclosure obligations only apply where a person is already registered under the scheme. These amendments will, among other things, align the act's registration and reporting time frames to capture people who are liable to register but who have not yet registered and ensure that the obligation to make disclosures in respect of relevant activities extends to all people who undertake such activities on behalf of a foreign principal and not just to people who are already registered. Finally, the bill would amend the offence provision in section 57 of the FITS Act to align it with normal Commonwealth drafting practices for criminal offence provisions. We will be supporting the changes in this bill to address the various drafting problems with the FITS Act that have come to light, despite the fact that the government worked on that piece of legislation for well over a year. This bill highlights, once again, the need to ensure all legislation—but especially national security legislation—is the subject of proper consultation, considered drafting and thorough preparation before it is brought to the parliament. It makes the job of all of us in this place easier and it makes our laws better. If we had spent less time during the 45th Parliament fixing the government's avoidable mistakes, we could have spent more time working on the solutions to the very real problems that continue to exist in the Australian community. I commend the bill to the House. 17:24 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks Australians expect their democracy to be robust, open and transparent. They expect to know, or to be able to easily find out, when a foreign government or other foreign actor is undertaking activities which are intended to influence our political systems or processes. The commencement of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme on 10 December last year was a major step forward in ensuring this is the case. For the very first time in Australia, the public and decision-makers in government have a mechanism for being made aware of the forms and sources of foreign influence in our democratic processes and institutions. This bill makes a number of minor amendments to the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018. The amendments will clarify the operation of a number of key provisions and improve the workability of the scheme. These amendments will give better effect to the important transparency intention of the act and continue to enhance the Australian public's knowledge of the level and extent to which foreign sources may influence the conduct of Australia's elections, government and parliamentary decision-making, and the creation and implementation of laws and policy. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 57 17:26 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (North Queensland Flood Recovery) Bill 2019 57

Treasury Laws Amendment (North Queensland Flood Recovery) Bill 2019

First Reading 57 Second Reading 57 17:27 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The government stands by those in Queensland as they work to rebuild their properties and communities following the devastating effects of the monsoonal trough earlier this year. The speed at which the floods hit and spread through north and western parts of Queensland was terrifying, coupled with low temperatures, high winds and extended periods of rainfall. The scale of the damage is immense. We know the number of livestock lost in the floods or through illness is in the hundreds of thousands, with some properties reportedly losing their entire herd. At the same time, crucial and costly farm and business infrastructure has simply been washed away. The impact socially, economically and otherwise on these communities is devastating. While the government cannot undo the damage that has been done, we can ensure that farming families and affected communities are well supported as they rebuild. To this end, the government has set up the North Queensland Livestock Industry Recovery Agency, headed by the Hon. Shane Stone AC QC. The agency will not only assist with the delivery of the immediate response, it will work with flood-affected farmers and communities to develop and coordinate a long-term plan for recovery and reconstruction. We also recognise it's important to make sure that these communities have access to support immediately so they can get back on their feet as soon as possible. In addition, we have seen severe storms inflict significant damage on primary producers in the Fassifern Valley, Queensland. This bill includes three measures all aimed at providing support to those affected by these events. Schedule 1 to the bill will make flood recovery grants exempt from income tax. We have worked closely with the Queensland government to provide more than $500 million to support flood-affected communities with the cost of recovery, such as clean-up, restocking and replanting and replacing on-farm infrastructure. This support includes: grants of up to $50,000 for eligible small businesses and non-profit organisations under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements; grants of up to $75,000 for eligible primary producers under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements; and additional grants of up to $400,000 to assist eligible primary producers with half of the cost of restocking, replanting and replacing on-farm infrastructure. Government grants are typically counted as assessable income for the recipient, meaning that taxpayers must pay income tax on the grant amount. However, given the exceptional circumstances, these grants are being made non-assessable, non-exempt income which means that: the grants will not be counted as assessable income; and the grants will not reduce any tax losses that can be carried forward to future years by the taxpayer. No taxpayer will be left with an income tax bill as a result of receiving a qualifying disaster recovery grant. Every dollar received will go towards rebuilding and re-establishing operations following the floods. Schedule 2 to the bill will make storm assistance grants to eligible primary producers in the Fassifern Valley, Queensland, exempt income for tax purposes. The government is providing $1 million to the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal, which will work with the Salvation Army and a local community panel to give grants to primary producers that sustained damage as a result of the severe storms of October 2018. The bill will make these grants exempt income for tax purposes, meaning that the grants are not counted as assessable income, but will reduce any tax losses that can be carried forward to future years. This will ensure that no primary producer is left with an up-front income tax bill as a result of receiving these grants, supporting them in their recovery from the storms. Schedule 3 to the bill provides a special appropriation of $1.75 billion so that the government is able to establish and administer a loan scheme that will enable banks to offer reduced interest rate loans to eligible flood-affected primary producers. The loan scheme, to be administered by the North Queensland Livestock Industry Recovery Agency, will provide participating banks with a reduced cost of funding to be passed through to eligible primary producers in the form of reduced interest loans to help stabilise their financial position. Together, these measures will provide further support to those affected by the Queensland floods and storms, helping them to recover and rebuild. Further details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately. 17:32 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I was born and raised in Townsville. I have been through Cyclone Althea, the flood of the late seventies and 'The Night of Noah' flood of 1998. But nothing in my life memory can compare with the disaster and the devastation of the flood that we experienced on 3 February 2019. Townsville experienced the worst flood in its recorded history. We had a year's rainfall in nine days, with 1,134 millimetres recorded up to 9 am on Monday, 4 February 2019, reaching over 1.65 metres. The Ross River Dam reached a record-breaking 244 per cent. More than 22,000 homes and 110 roads in Townsville were affected by this extreme weather event. Every day after the flood, my team and I visited families in affected areas, helping them clean up their homes. We delivered burritos and water donated by GYG and Morco Fresh Foods. We have been helping Townsville residents with their federal government disaster recovery claims. I support the Treasury Laws Amendment (North Queensland Flood Recovery) Bill 2019 because it provides vital funding for our disaster-ridden community. But I will also take this time to condemn the LNP government for its difficult and shameful criteria associated with the special disaster assistance recovery funding. The claims process has created more stress for people who are already stressed. The LNP claims process is a hoop-jumping exercise that includes incredibly harsh restrictions on claims. Cherrie Vitalli, whose house was inundated by flood—she lives in the red flood zone—was denied the vital relief funding three times. Elaine in Railway Estate was denied vital assistance because she lives in a Queenslander home, and the LNP made harsh restrictions where the water had to go over the floorboards of the main part of the home. Under her home, the bottom floor was not covered. The LNP government left the local Department of Human Services staff very vulnerable. They were not allowed to assist their fellow Townsville residents with their claims because residents could only call a Melbourne number between nine and five. Townsville had to fight through the flood and then had to fight the LNP government for its fair share. Townsville residents shouldn't be treated as second-class citizens by this government, not to mention the fact that the LNP government is treating Townsville small businesses disgracefully. I fought the LNP government to include local small business in their disaster relief funds. Many local small businesses are struggling to get assistance from the LNP government to get back on their feet and, importantly, keep their staff employed. We dragged the LNP kicking and screaming to the table to provide relief for Townsville businesses and finally, more than a month after the flood, the government eventually came to the table. But, once again, the LNP government set strict and harsh criteria for small-business relief grants. These harsh restrictions have made it almost impossible for any small business to be granted the relief funding that they deserve and desperately need. Just as I have been visiting flood affected families, I have also visited flood affected Townsville small businesses and I can safely say small businesses are angry with this out-of-touch LNP government. I visited local business owner Warren Figg who owns Auto Centre Townsville. His business was inundated. He has a car yard. The car yard and the office were inundated. He was concerned about keeping his business going so that his employees would not lose their jobs and he could get on with selling his vehicles. As Warren said, this funding should be easy to access to reduce the stress on small-business owners. The reality is that these funds would flow straight back into a struggling community. Surely it is not too much to expect that the LNP government would assist small-business owners after this devastation. Warren, like so many others, needs this vital funding. Warren applied for the small business relief funding almost immediately and, after six weeks, he was still waiting for a response. The grant provides up to $50,000 for small businesses impacted by the flood, but, as Warren has described, he and other Townsville small businesses have had to jump through a lot of hoops just to apply for the grant. Warren advised that, after he applied for the grant and he had not heard anything for a couple of weeks, he made a phone call. He was told an assessor had not even picked up his application to look at it and they could not give him a time when this would happen. This is simply not good enough. The LNP's criteria and mountains of paperwork seem to be designed to keep small businesses excluded rather than included. Townsville businesses need to have a simple, clear, less bureaucratic process. Simply get rid of the red tape. Now is the time to help small businesses in Townsville. Now is the time for the government to take action to help these businesses get back on their feet. Warren has described the whole rigmarole that he has been put through by the LNP government as getting 'hung out to dry'. Warren has so far spent close to $50,000 to just get the business started again, but some businesses do not have this cashflow to get their businesses going. Prime Minister Scott Morrison and LNP members, let me tell you: you are not helping small businesses get back on their feet. You are putting the owners' livelihoods at stake and putting the one in every four jobs that is created by a small business in Townsville at risk. Townsville's jobs are directly under threat because of LNP's out-of-touch and harsh criteria for small-business relief grants. More than 391 businesses have been affected directly by the floods in Townsville, with an average loss of $98,000. Combined state and federal funding totals $27.2 million for relief grants for small businesses. In Townsville, $724,112 has been delivered for 100 businesses. That is less than three per cent of the money delivered to our community. The LNP need to wake up. Small businesses in Townsville are hurting and hurting badly. The strict criteria are killing small businesses in Townsville and costing local jobs that we cannot afford to lose, given our unemployment rate is almost double that of the national average. Unemployment has already almost doubled, as I said, and it will continue to get worse if we do not get help to the small businesses that have been affected by this devastating flood. The LNP need to review their harsh and rigid restrictions. I demand action now on this issue. Townsville deserves our fair share and I will fight tooth and nail for my community to get our fair share. 17:39 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden We thank the member for her contribution. The Treasury Laws Amendment (North Queensland Flood Recovery) Bill 2019 includes three measures, all aimed at providing support to those affected by floods and storms in Queensland. Schedule 1 makes qualifying disaster payments, recovery and on-farm grants to Queensland flood-affected primary producers, small businesses and non-profit organisations non-assessable nonincome for tax purposes. Schedule 2 treats qualifying payments to primary producers in Fassifern Valley, Queensland, affected by storm damage in October 2018 as exempt income for tax purposes. Schedule 3 provides a special appropriation for the government to establish and administer a loans scheme that will enable banks to offer reduced-interest-rate loans to eligible primary producers affected by the floods. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 60 17:41 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 60 BUSINESS Rearrangement 60 17:42 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 31, Government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 60 BILLS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Worker Screening Database) Bill 2019 60

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Worker Screening Database) Bill 2019

Second Reading 60 17:43 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I rise to support the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Worker Screening Database) Bill 2019. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes: (a) the longstanding calls from people with disability and their advocates, and the recommendation of the Senate Community Affairs Committee in November 2015, that a Royal Commission be established to inquire into the violence against and abuse of people with disability; (b) this conservative Government rejected, in March 2017, the recommendation of the Senate Community Affairs Committee that a Royal Commission be established, and voted twice in the Senate against calls for a Royal Commission to be established; (c) that children with disability are three times more likely to experience abuse than children who do not have disability, and that 90 per cent of women with intellectual disability have been sexually abused; and (d) there is now commitment across the Parliament for a Royal Commission into violence and abuse perpetrated against people with disability; and (2) calls on the Government to ensure a majority of Royal Commissioners have lived experience of disability and that there is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Royal Commissioner". We know how important it is that people with disability receive high-quality care from the people they trust. This is one of the key reasons why, when Labor were last in government, we introduced the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It is why Labor committed to a royal commission into violence against and abuse and neglect of people with disability back in May 2017. People with disability are significantly more vulnerable to abuse and neglect, and often they are simply unable to access the justice that they deserve. This bill establishes the legislative framework for the commencement of a national worker screening database for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, known as the NDIS. The Council of Australian Governments Disability Reform Council agreed to establish a nationally consistent approach to worker screening in which states and territories will collect and analyse worker screening applications for the NDIS and the Commonwealth will establish and maintain a national database. Currently, individual states and territories are responsible for collecting and maintaining their own worker screening processes. This bill maintains individual state and territory arrangements for the collection of worker screening information, but it creates, importantly, a central national database to store and disclose that information as required. The database will disclose information to those who are employing staff to work with NDIS participants to confirm to employers whether a particular person does or does not pose a risk to people with disability. Labor welcomes this legislation because we know that people with disability are at greater risk of abuse than others in our community. Too often this abuse comes at the hands of people whom people with disability should be able to trust the most. There are many horrific cases of people with disability being abused and assaulted in institutions, and residential and educational settings. According to Disabled People's Organisations Australia, 92 per cent of women with intellectual disability have been sexually assaulted. Sixty per cent of these assaults occur before these women turn 18. Further, children with disability are at least three times more likely to experience abuse than other children. While the national worker screening database will be an important tool to prevent some abuse occurring in the future, it can never investigate the crimes of the past, nor will it address systemic failings in other sectors, including health, education, mental health and justice. The voices of people who have been abused must be heard. We cannot continue to allow these sickening incidents of abuse to be swept under the carpet. This is why Labor committed to a royal commission into violence and abuse of people with a disability, which the Leader of the Opposition, along with the member for Jagajaga, announced in May 2017. Only a royal commission will have the power, weight and authority to uncover the stories of injustice and deliver lasting changes for people with disability. It is good to see the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government finally take the royal commission seriously. People with disability and Labor have been calling for this for many years. Labor has called on the government to ensure that the final terms of reference are broad and cover a range of contexts, including education, health, mental health and residential settings. Labor believes it is crucial that it also covers historic abuse and abuses. Above all, it is imperative that the government consult with people with disability and their advocates, not only in setting the terms of reference but also in the conduct of the royal commission itself. Labor has also called for the majority of the members of the royal commission to have lived experience of disability and for at least one royal commissioner to be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. Labor has also asked the government to consider assistant commissioners to make sure the voices of people with different experiences of disability, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, and LGBTIQ people are considered at every stage of the process in the formulation of the recommendations. I also want to take the opportunity to briefly discuss the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison's government neglect of the National Disability Insurance Scheme over the past five years. I have been absolutely gobsmacked and extraordinarily disturbed by the many people I have met with, both people with a disability and their families and advocates, to hear some of these stories. The government's last-minute announcement on prices for providers is an admission that it has completely botched the rollout of the scheme. The NDIS is recording a massive underspend. The scheme is running behind schedule, with the equivalent of 77,000 eligible participants missing out. Participants are continuing to experience lengthy delays and plans are being underutilised. This means that people with disability are simply not receiving the support that they need. The government should get the NDIS right, not use it to prop up its budget, and that is what we are seeing. Let there be no misguidance on that. In 2014, the Liberals placed a staffing cap on the National Disability Insurance Agency which has stifled the agency's capacity to properly roll out the scheme and has placed unnecessary pressure on staff. Labor's plan, if we are afforded government, is clear. We will start by abolishing the Liberals' arbitrary staffing cap. This will give capacity for the NDIA to do its job properly. We have to make sure the NDIS fulfils its promise and improves the lives of Australians with disability and this means putting people with disability and their families back at the heart of the NDIS. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 Is the amendment seconded? 17:50 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I second the amendment. I rise to support the amendment moved by the member for Barton and shadow minister for families and social services. This bill amends the NDIS Act to provide a legislative framework for requiring that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission maintains a national worker screening database for the NDIS. Whilst we welcome the measure, it is critical that this bill notes the importance of the royal commission into violence against and abuse of those living with disability. Tonight I acknowledge my friend and colleague Liesl Tesch from the New South Wales parliament, who is also a wheelchair user. Liesl is a powerful advocate for people with disability in our community and across Australia. These are her words: 'The NDIS was designed to improve the quality of life for people with disabilities, not to create further gaps and further fears and greater inconsistency in the nondelivery of services that allow people with disabilities access and inclusion within Australian communities.' Liesl and I regularly share conversations in our professional world about individual cases of neglect and gaps in delivery that impact on people with disability across the Central Coast. Last week we met with VOICCD, a local disability advocacy group speaking up for and supporting people with disability in our community. The clear message we have heard is of the need to improve every aspect of the NDIS—to fund, not to cut budgets, to improve the lives of people living with disability, is paramount. As Liesl says, 'People with disability need to know that our support workers and carers are absolutely trustworthy.' In my office on the New South Wales Central Coast we have been contacted by and have worked closely with 300 people who have had problems with the transition to the NDIS and with their plans. We try to work with the agency to resolve these issues. We, as Australians living with and without disabilities, need to know that a diverse cross-section of people with disability have a very clear voice in the NDIS and in the royal commission into violence against and abuse and neglect of people with disability. We want them to be active, included and full participants in Australian society. It is so critical to people in our community living with disability. I am so pleased to support the amendment moved by the member for Barton and I'm very pleased to acknowledge the powerful advocacy of Liesl Tesch. Liesl is a role model for all of us on the Central Coast and across Australia. Liesl is a former teacher, a Paralympic gold medallist and a New South Wales state parliament member for the Labor Party. We need more people like Liesl representing our diverse community, our inclusive community, so that we can be a community where everybody can fully participate, an inclusive community that is strong and diverse and reflects the whole of our community. Liesl, you are an inspiration to all of us. It is such a privilege to consider you a friend and a colleague. I am so pleased that you could be here today in the federal parliament to hear this important debate. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to the House today about this critical issue in our community. I want to acknowledge and recognise the work of our shadow minister, the member for Barton, who has the heart, the empathy, the compassion and the know-how to change this. It must be better. It matters, and we must make a difference. Thank you. 17:54 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Last time we were in this parliament, the Minister for Families and Social Services stated that the NDIS was now serving over 250,000 people across Australia and the Prime Minister touted that the scheme was one that provided choice and control for disabled Australians. At the time of that statement, the government had extended question time in what was widely believed to be a deliberate attempt to delay a vote on the establishment of a royal commission into the abuse of disabled Australians. What neither the Prime Minister nor the minister responsible discussed during the many opportunities provided during that sitting fortnight were the 184 incidents of abuse and neglect reported to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, the 62 reports of expected or unexpected deaths, the 91 reports of injuries, the 34 complaints against staff and providers, and the 75 cases of unauthorised restraint. All of these were in just the three-month window between July 2018 and the end of September 2018. We, as legislators, have a duty to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. If we won't show the leadership that our communities expect, then we condone the poor behaviour of others through our wilful blindness: the behaviour you walk past is the behaviour you accept. However, the government eventually relented its opposition to the royal commission, and I note the recent announcement that the government will commit the resources needed to ensure a thorough investigation of the issue. The exploitation of vulnerable people was set out in excruciating detail at the royal commission into institutional child sex abuse and the royal commission into banking and financial services. No doubt, we will uncover further abuses in the royal commission into aged care. The abuses may have been prevented if only we had shone a light on these issues earlier and if we had listened to those who had spoken out and given a voice to those who were too afraid to do so. I welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to investigate the abuse and neglect of people with a disability, and I am pleased to see the government taking action through the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Worker Screening Database) Bill 2019 to prevent others from suffering the same fate. The bill will enable the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to establish and maintain a nationally consistent database for worker screening of people who provide NDIS supports and services through a registered NDIS provider or for those who self manage. Current worker screening arrangements are state based and vary in quality, with some states not recognising clearances given by other states. The NDIS commission will be responsible for maintaining the database, which will record all cleared and excluded applicants from all states and territories. It will also enable national ongoing monitoring of cleared applicants' criminal history records to ensure that worker screening units can assess and respond in a timely manner to the risk posed to participants. This is an important step forward in ensuring that NDIS participants are treated with dignity and respect, and in protecting their welfare as vulnerable members of our community. However, there is a long way to go. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the work of individuals, such as the former member of the South Australian Legislative Council, the Hon. Kelly Vincent and Senator Jordon Steele-John, who have long campaigned for the rights of disabled Australians. 17:58 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks This National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Worker Screening Database) Bill 2019 establishes the National Disability Insurance Scheme Worker Screening Database. The database will keep an up-to-date national record of information about NDIS worker screening checks. A clearance recorded in the database means that the NDIS worker has undergone a background check and has been found not to pose an unacceptable risk of harm to NDIS participants. The Morrison government is committed to the right of people with a disability to live lives free from abuse, violence, neglect and exploitation. The central database to be established under this bill will support nationally consistent NDIS worker screening in pursuit of this objective. It is an important measure to ensure that people with disability have access to quality and safe supports and services under the NDIS, and are not at risk of harm from people who work closely with them. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Barton 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. Third Reading 63 18:00 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Bill 2018 63

Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Bill 2018

Second Reading 63 18:01 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I thank those who've contributed to the debate. The government is committed to implementing its response to the financial services royal commission. This bill is an important part of our commitment. It will ensure that financial products are sold to the right consumers and that ASIC is empowered to intervene in order to prevent consumer harm. The bill introduces a new design and distribution obligation for financial products. These obligations will require product issuers to determine an appropriate target market for their products and distributors to take reasonable steps to ensure that those products are distributed accordingly. The bill also provides ASIC with a new product intervention power that will allow the corporate watchdog to make interventions in relation to a financial product where it identifies a risk of significant consumer detriment. These crucial reforms build on the substantial steps already undertaken by the government to protect Australian consumers. They deliver on our commitment to ensure that consumers are treated fairly by our financial system. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 64 18:03 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (9), as circulated, together. Leave granted. Mr ROBERT HWT by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (9), as circulated, together: (1)   Schedule 1, item 5, page 5(afterline6), after the definition of excludeddealingin subsection 994A(1), insert: financial product has the meaning given by subsection 994AA(1). [meaning of financial product] (2)   Schedule 1, item 5, page 5, at the end of the definition of regulatedsalein subsection 994A(1), add:    ; or (c)   made in circumstances prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph. [meaning of regulated sale] (3)   Schedule 1, item 5, page 6(afterline32), after section 994A, insert: 994AA Extended operation of this Part in relation to ASIC Act financial products    (1)   In this Part, financialproduct means each of the following:    (a)   a financial product (within the meaning of this Chapter) (see section 761A);    (b)   a financial product (within the meaning of Division 2 of Part 2 of the ASIC Act), other than a financial product covered by paragraph (a). Note:   Whether a target market determination is required to be made in relation to financial products covered by this extended definition is determined under section 994B, including any regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 994B(3)(f).    (2)   In determining the meaning of a term used in a provision of this Part (other than this section), treat a reference in this Act to a financial product as being a reference to a financial product within the meaning of subsection (1) of this section. [meaning of financial product] (4)   Schedule 1, item 5, page 7 (after line 10), after paragraph 994B(1)(b), insert:    (ba)   the product is covered by paragraph 994AA(1)(b) (about the extended operation of this Part) and:    (i)   the person issues the product to another person as a retail client; or    (ii)   the person sells the product under a regulated sale; or [target market determinations for financial products] (5)   Schedule 1, item 5, page 7, line 15, omit "or (b)", substitute ",(b)or(ba)". [target market determinations for financial products] (6)   Schedule 1, item 5, page 25 (line 7), after "section", insert "994B,". [civil liability] (7)   Schedule 1, item 5, page 26 (after line 5), at the end of Division 6, add: 994P Orders to redress loss or damage suffered by non-party consumers etc. Orders    (1)   If:    (a)   a person engaged in conduct (the contraveningconduct) in contravention of section 994B, 994C or 994D or subsection 994E(1) or (3); and    (b)   the contravening conduct caused, or is likely to cause, a class of persons to suffer loss or damage; and    (c)   the class includes persons (non-party consumers) who have not been a party to proceedings under this Act in relation to the contravening conduct; the Court may, on the application of ASIC, make such order or orders (other than an award of damages) as the Court thinks appropriate against a person referred to in subsection (2) of this section. Note:   The orders that the Court may make include all or any of the orders set out in section 994Q.    (2)   An order under subsection (1) may be made against the person who engaged in the contravening conduct, or a person involved in that conduct.    (3)   The Court must not make an order under subsection (1) unless the Court considers that the order will:    (a)   redress, in whole or in part, the loss or damage suffered by the non-party consumers in relation to the contravening conduct; or    (b)   prevent or reduce the loss or damage suffered, or likely to be suffered, by the non-party consumers in relation to the contravening conduct. Application for orders    (4)   An application may be made under subsection (1) even if a proceeding in relation to the contravening conduct has not been instituted.    (5)   An application under subsection (1) may be made at any time within 6 years after the day on which the cause of action that relates to the contravening conduct accrues. Determining whether to make an order    (6)   In determining whether to make an order under subsection (1) against a person referred to in subsection (2), the Court may have regard to the conduct of the person, and of the non-party consumers in relation to the contravening conduct, since the contravention occurred.    (7)   In determining whether to make an order under subsection (1), the Court need not make a finding about either of the following matters:    (a)   which persons are non-party consumers in relation to the contravening conduct;    (b)   the nature of the loss or damage suffered, or likely to be suffered, by such persons. When a non-party consumer is bound by an order etc.    (8)   If:    (a)   an order is made under subsection (1) against a person; and    (b)   the loss or damage suffered, or likely to be suffered, by a non-party consumer in relation to the contravening conduct to which the order relates has been redressed, prevented or reduced in accordance with the order; and    (c)   the non-party consumer has accepted the redress, prevention or reduction; then:    (d)   the non-party consumer is bound by the order; and    (e)   any other order made under subsection (1) that relates to that loss or damage has no effect in relation to the non-party consumer; and    (f)   despite any other provision of this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth, or a State or Territory, no claim, action or demand may be made or taken against the person by the non-party consumer in relation to that loss or damage. 994Q Kinds of orders that may be made to redress loss or damage suffered by non-party consumers etc.       Without limiting subsection 994P(1), the orders that the Court may make under that subsection against a person (the respondent) include all or any of the following:    (a)   an order declaring the whole or any part of a contract made between the respondent and a non-party consumer referred to in that subsection, or a collateral arrangement relating to such a contract:    (i)   to be void; and    (ii)   if the Court thinks fit—to have been void ab initio or void at all times on and after such date as is specified in the order (which may be a date that is before the date on which the order is made);    (b)   an order:    (i)   varying such a contract or arrangement in such manner as is specified in the order; and    (ii)   if the Court thinks fit—declaring the contract or arrangement to have had effect as so varied on and after such date as is specified in the order (which may be a date that is before the date on which the order is made);    (c)   an order refusing to enforce any or all of the provisions of such a contract or arrangement;    (d)   an order directing the respondent to refund money or return property to a non-party consumer referred to in that subsection;    (e)   an order directing the respondent, at the respondent's own expense, to repair, or provide parts for, goods that have been supplied under the contract or arrangement to a non-party consumer referred to in that subsection;    (f)   an order directing the respondent, at the respondent's own expense, to supply specified services to a non-party consumer referred to in that subsection;    (g)   an order, in relation to an instrument creating or transferring an interest in land, directing the respondent to execute an instrument that:    (i)   varies, or has the effect of varying, the first‑mentioned instrument; or    (ii)   terminates or otherwise affects, or has the effect of terminating or otherwise affecting, the operation or effect of the first‑mentioned instrument. [redress for loss or damage arising from contravention] (8)   Schedule 2, item 7, page 30 (before line 21), before the definition of financialproduct in section 1023B, insert: ASIC Act financial product means a financial product within the meaning of Division 2 of Part 2 of the ASIC Act. [meaning of financial product] (9)   Schedule 2, item 7, page 30 (lines 21 to 25), omit the definition of financialproduct in section 1023B, substitute: financial product includes an ASIC Act financial product but does not include:    (a)   a financial product issued, or offered for regulated sale, by an exempt body or an exempt public authority; or    (b)   a financial product specified in regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph. [meaning of financial product] 18:03 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I'm very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on the amendments that are being moved to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Bill 2019. Labor was always very supportive of this legislation. I'm actually even more pleased to be here speaking on the amendments, because they do make some important changes that will help protect Australians from dodgy conduct by financial providers. I want the House to be under no illusion though. These are Labor's amendments. They're amendments that we pushed for the moment that the design and distribution obligations bill was presented into the House, and, in fact, the government fought them for a long time. I do want that to be understood for the public record. What Labor called for initially was for products such as buy-now pay-later to be included in the scope of the bill. We wanted the government to include dodgy funeral expenses products in the bill and we wanted credit providers to be covered by design and distribution obligations under the bill too. I'm very glad the government has come to the table with these amendments. It's better late than never. Unfortunately, it does reflect the very slow and lazy attitude towards regulating financial misconduct that we've seen from the government over a long period of time. Labor initiated a Senate inquiry into this bill. That inquiry, led by Labor, proposed the amendments that are being put forward by the government today. The government senators in the other place actually opposed that report where Labor recommended the changes that are before us. Since then, this bill's been languishing on the Notice Paper—and, every week, my office looks eagerly to see whether it might be listed for debate and discussion in the House. But the government has refused, time and time again, to bring it on for debate. It is almost as if they've been hiding the bill for fear of what we believe is a commonsense approach to getting fairer outcomes for Australians. We all know the government's record on these matters. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a financial services royal commission. Those on the other side, instead of siding with ordinary Australians, did everything they could to stop the big banks from being subject to proper accountability. They voted against a royal commission 26 times and, instead of fighting for ordinary Australians, they used their energy to push for $17 billion in tax cuts for the big banks. It's very unfortunate that that attitude bled into the way they've handled this bill. This is another sorry entry on the government's appalling record on financial services. It demonstrates a complete lack of judgement by those opposite. It's a government that refuses to lead and, instead, time and time again, as we've seen on these crucial issues of financial services, is actually being led by the opposition. The amendments will implement recommendations made by Commissioner Hayne which were belatedly accepted by the government after the Hayne royal commission report was finally handed down. The amendments will allow ASIC to properly regulate the products that I've described and help to better protect consumers from harm. They should always have been in the scope of the bill, and Labor pushed the government for months to agree to some accommodation to the changes that we were suggesting. The amendments will bring consumer credit products such as credit cards, personal loans and home loans within the scope of the designer distribution obligations. When you think about it, it is utterly bizarre that, under the government's original bill, banks would have had to prepare target market determinations for a basic deposit account but not for a credit card and a home loan. That's how wrong they got it on the first go. ASIC called for the changes that are being made today, Labor called for the changes and the royal commission backed us in. It was only then that the government folded and said it was going to agree with the suggestions that Labor was making. The amendments before us will implement two other recommendations that arose from the Labor senators' report from the Senate inquiry into this bill. Under the government's original bill, companies are liable to compensate consumers if they do not review or properly implement a target market determination. However, they are not required to compensate consumers at all if they've failed to make a target determination in the first place. This amendment will fix that loophole. If a company fails to make a market determination when it's required to, consumers will be able to access compensation for any loss as a result. It's only logical that some of these changes be made, and I'm very pleased to be on my feet and supporting the amendments. The final point I'll make is that the amendments that the government is putting forward today are in part implementing some of the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission. What we've heard from those on the other side of the chamber is that the royal commission is too hard and that we've got to do so much consultation and we've got to wait, delay and obfuscate before we get on and implement the royal commission's recommendations. Well, here we are in the chamber, right before the eyes of the Australian people, starting to implement its recommendations. All that shows us is that if this government really cared about financial services, if they really cared about protecting Australians from the big banks, they would have called the parliament previously and we'd be implementing more of those recommendations right now. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 67 18:09 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Increasing the Instant Asset Write-Off for Small Business Entities) Bill 2019 67

Treasury Laws Amendment (Increasing the Instant Asset Write-Off for Small Business Entities) Bill 2019

Second Reading 67 18:10 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I believe I'm speaking in continuation on this bill, and I just want to clarify an amendment that I spoke of when I first started speaking to this bill. I move the amendment: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) affirms the importance of encouraging small business to make new capital investments; and (2) notes that the Opposition's Australian Investment Guarantee is permanent, will provide targeted tax relief for businesses that invest in Australia and Australians, and guarantees new investment". I call for the amendment to be seconded. Mr Champion HW9 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 I thank the member for Wakefield for seconding that amendment. I just want to reiterate our support for this bill and of course the amendment we've moved. Labor supports small business. We always will and always have. We have an excellent package of small business policies that we will take to the upcoming election, and I look forward to taking that to the people of Western Australia and indeed the greater Australian community. 18:12 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden Firstly, I thank those members who've contributed to the debate, and I thank the shadow minister. This government is committed to supporting hardworking Australian small businesses, improving their cash flow and helping them invest and grow. That's why we're increasing the instant asset write-off threshold from $20,000 to $25,000 and extending it until 30 June 2020. The increased threshold applies from the announcement on 29 January 2019 and will benefit over three million eligible small businesses with annual turnover of less than $10 million which employ around six million workers. The changes mean that small business will be able to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $25,000. More expensive assets will continue to be added to the small business depreciation pool and written off under those rules. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Brand has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 67 18:14 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Reforms No. 1) Bill 2019 68

Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Reforms No. 1) Bill 2019

Second Reading 68 18:15 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Labor supports the Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Reforms No. 1) Bill 2019. This bill follows the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into corporate tax avoidance, which Labor tasked with investigating concerns about the petroleum resource rent tax regime. The government commenced shortly after their own review, which was led by Mike Callaghan. The bill gives effect to some of the government's response to that review of the petroleum resource rent tax, or the PRRT. The bill lowers the uplift rates that apply to certain categories of carry-forward expenditure and removes offshore petroleum projects from the scope of the PRRT. The petroleum resource rent tax is a profits based tax on petroleum production. A person is subject to tax on the taxable profit they receive for a year of tax in relation to a petroleum project. The taxable profit is the person's assessable receipts less the sum of their deductible expenditure and exploration expenditure transferred to the petroleum project. Categories of deductible expenditure are: general project expenditure; exploration expenditure; resource tax expenditure, which is grossed up by the PRRT rate of 40 per cent to give credit for royalties and excise paid on a petroleum project's output; acquired exploration expenditure and starting base expenditure, which recognises investments made in projects that transitioned to the PRRT regime; and closing down expenditure, which can give rise to a refundable credit to the extent of prior PRRT liabilities. PRRT liabilities are calculated on a project basis, meaning deductible expenditure can generally only be used to offset assessable receipts from the same petroleum project and generally cannot be transferred to other projects of the taxpayer. Exploration expenditure is an exception to this principle. The explanatory memorandum to the bill states that the future second tranche of amendments will seek to implement during 2019 other changes announced in the government's response—namely, improved rules will be introduced to identify petroleum projects to ensure the true scope of each project is recognised; more corporate groups will be able to access the benefits of grouping, including group lodgement obligations and broader access to functional currency rules; greater certainty will be created for deductible expenditure arising before a petroleum project starts to derive assessable receipts by taxpayers being required to lodge an annual PRRT return, and receive assessments, after they start holding an interest in an exploration permit, retention lease or production licence rather than when they start generating assessable receipts from production; taxpayers will be able to use a substituted accounting period for PRRT purposes if they have adopted the period for income tax purposes; there will be a new power for the tax commissioner to administratively exempt projects from PRRT obligations where they are clearly unlikely to pay PRRT in the foreseeable future until they start production or the PRRT becomes payable; and the PRRT general avoidance provisions will be strengthened to reflect changes made to part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Petroleum projects generally experience periods of negative cash flow during exploration and construction before a project becomes cash flow positive. Taxpayers may carry forward unutilised expenditure to offset future positive cash flow periods. This is a principle that's long been established in Australian taxation law. The PRRT applies an uplift rate to carry forward expenditure. The uplift rates are specific to different types of expenditure. Given LNG projects are characterised by long development time lines, this increases the delay between the initial investment and positive cash flow. This in turn increases the total uplift applied to expenditure over the course of the project. The Callaghan review found that PRRT uplift rates for deductible expenditure are now overly generous. This bill proposes the following changes. For petroleum projects that successfully apply for a production licence from 1 July 2019 based on the date specified in a production licence notice, the general expenditure uplift rate will be the long-term bond rate plus five percentage points until the financial year 10 years after the financial year in which a project first derives assessable petroleum receipts. From that financial year, the uplift rate for remaining deductions will equal the long-term bond rate. For exploration expenditure incurred or transferred from 1 July 2019, the uplift rate will be the long-term bond rate plus five percentage points until the financial year 10 years after the year in which the expenditure was incurred. From that financial year, any remaining amount of exploration expenditure is maintained in real terms by applying the GDP factor until the expenditure is deducted. Where exploration expenditure incurred before 1 July 2019 is deducted within a petroleum project, the current uplift rate equal to the long-term bond rate plus 15 percentage points will continue to apply until 1 July 2019. From that date, the uplift rate will equal the long-term bond rate, plus the five percentage points will apply. In terms of onshore petroleum projects, the PRRT originally applied only to certain petroleum projects in Commonwealth waters. Onshore projects were subject to other resource taxation arrangements, including state and Commonwealth royalties, crude oil excises and the resource rent royalty. From 1 July 2012, the then Labor government extended the PRRT to onshore petroleum projects, including coastal waters within the state and territory jurisdictions and at the North West Shelf. The Callaghan review found the extension of the PRRT to onshore projects also meant that these projects can transfer exploration expenditure to other PRRT paying projects within a wholly-owned group of companies, which is likely to have lowered PRRT revenues in 2012. This bill would remove onshore petroleum projects from the scope of the PRRT. Onshore petroleum projects are generally not expected to result in PRRT liabilities but can reduce taxpayers' PRRT liabilities for offshore projects because of the transfer of exploration expenditure. The EM states: Removing onshore petroleum projects from the PRRT addresses the integrity risk posed by transfers of exploration expenditure and removes the regulatory burden associated with the PRRT for these projects. As I stated at the outset, Labor supports this bill, but we do take a broader approach to taxation reform than the government. Our multinational tax avoidance approach is stronger than the government's, we're closing tax concessions that relate to negative gearing and capital gains tax that have overwhelmingly benefited those that are well off and we are also making a fairer regime when it comes to taxing family trusts. All in all, a Shorten Labor government will tighten debt deduction loopholes used by multinational companies, improving the budget bottom line by $3 billion over the medium term; close a debt deduction loophole that ensures consistent treatment of related party financing arrangements; automatically deny deductions for companies for travel to and from tax havens and clamp down on unsubstantiated allowance relating to tax havens; increase penalties for individuals and entities promoting tax evasion and avoidance; crack down on citizenship shopping, by requiring all individual Australian taxpayers to notify and declare to the ATO if they have residency or citizenship of other jurisdictions and the name of that jurisdiction; introduce public reporting of country-by-country reports, ensuring the release of high-level tax information about where and how much tax was paid by large corporations; provide protection for whistleblowers who report entities evading and, where the whistleblower's information results in more tax being paid, allow them to collect a share of that tax penalty; introduce a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of Australian listed companies and trusts, allowing the public to find out who really owns firms; introduce mandatory shareholder reporting of tax havens' exposure, requiring companies to disclose to shareholders a material tax risk if the company is doing business in a tax haven; appoint a community sector representative to the Board of Taxation; introduce public reporting of ATO transaction reports and AUSTRAC data reports to require the annual public release of international cash flow data; require all firms tendering for Australian government contracts worth more than $200,000 to state their country of domicile for tax purposes; develop guidelines for tax haven investment by superannuation funds; require that the ATO's annual reports provide information on the number and size of tax settlements; and restore Labor's $100 million threshold for public reporting of tax data for private companies, which was raised to $200 million by the Liberals and the Greens in a move which exempted two-thirds of private companies from that tax transparency. As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, Labor has a comprehensive tax plan, a comprehensive set of reforms, that will ensure greater scrutiny, transparency and accountability for large multinationals and ensure that, ultimately, more revenue is raised from those multinationals to, importantly, fund proper services, particularly around health, education and infrastructure in this country. With that in mind, we support these bills, but I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes that a Senate committee inquiry into corporate tax avoidance made recommendations for reform of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, including some of the measures proposed by this bill; and (2) calls on the Government to act on other areas of concern highlighted by the corporate tax avoidance inquiry, such as tackling in a comprehensive manner multinational tax loopholes and tax havens used by the top end of town". The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Mr Champion HW9 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 18:27 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden Let me thank the members who've contributed to the debate. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Reforms No. 1) Bill 2019 implements key components of the government's response to the Petroleum resource rent tax review, undertaken by Mike Callaghan AM, PSM. Since the PRRT was introduced, in 1988, Australia's petroleum industry has changed, shifting to a greater role for liquefied natural gas, LNG. Schedule 1 to the bill lowers the uplift rate that applies to exploration in general carried-forward expenditure. This prevents excessive compounding of deductions. Schedule 2 to the bill removes onshore projects from the PRRT. No PRRT has ever been collected from onshore projects. In practice, onshore projects that would never pay PRRT have been able to transfer exploration deductions to offshore projects, reducing revenue. Onshore projects remain subject to state taxation. These measures strengthen the integrity of the PRRT and ensure a fairer return for Australia for the extraction of our oil and gas resources. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Kingsford Smith 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. Third Reading 70 18:29 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill 2019 70

Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill 2019

Second Reading 70 18:30 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin It's not my intention to try to detain the House for very long, but I do appreciate the opportunity to outline Labor's position on the Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill 2019. The Aged Care Act is to be amended, as, in its current form, it does not permit a variation of the region to which residential aged-care places are provisionally allocated. My understanding is this bill will allow the Secretary of the Department of Health or her delegates to allow approved providers of residential aged care to move provisionally allocated residential aged-care places from one region to another within that state or territory. The Department of Health is not seeking the power to move provisionally allocated places from one state or territory to another. This bill will not allow the movement of any provisionally allocated places outside the state or territory to which it was originally allocated, and I put that on the record to ensure that that does not occur because we understand that that's not allowed under the bill as it has been drafted. We understand that, under this amendment bill, providers must demonstrate the movement of the provisionally allocated places is in the interest of aged-care consumers and that there is a clear need for places in the new region being proposed. The amendment bill will seek to ensure that residential aged care is available as quickly as possible to those older Australians who require it and is appropriately allocated to address local needs. There appears to be no financial impact for the Australian government by these proposed amendments, because those places are allocated through the ACAR rounds. It's not my intention to detain the House, and Labor doesn't want to cause any issues or delay this bill going through, but I do need to put on record that, after almost six years of cuts in the aged care portfolio, any announcements that are made tonight in relation to aged care—and particularly in relation to home care packages—will not fool older Australians, their families or their loved ones. Let's be really frank about this: the government has mucked up aged care to the point where it had to call a royal commission into the quality and safety of aged-care services in this country. We all know that more than 128,000 older Australians are currently on the waitlist for home care packages; 69,000 of those have no package at all allocated to them at this point in time and the others are on interim packages—that is, packages below the level of support that they require. The government of course has made some announcements in the last few months in relation to aged care and home care packages, but let's not forget the cuts that they made to aged care. I do want to put them on the record: $110 million cut to the dementia supplement in residential aged care, almost $500 million cut in the 2015 MYEFO and a $1.2 billion cut to the aged care funding instrument in the 2016-17 budget. The architect of these cuts, almost $2 billion worth, was the current Prime Minister when he was Treasurer. Recently it was revealed how the $1.2 billion cut has had an impact on the residential aged-care sector. We are hearing about it all the time. Departmental briefings confirmed that residential aged-care funding has gone backwards for those with complex needs. Departmental briefings described older Australians as 'winners' and 'losers' and revealed for the first time that funding for those with complex healthcare needs in residential aged care went backwards as a result of the Prime Minister's $1.2 billion cut. Funding for residents went backwards and staff cutbacks and aged-care 'losers'—according to the department—tripled. So let's not shy away from the fact that this government has taken billions of dollars out over six years, and any announcements tonight and over the next six weeks are not going to make up for those billions of dollars cut and the neglect of and lack of focus on aged care until the last few months. Let's be honest: the government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to deal with this aged-care issue. It has only been because of the families who are contacting the offices of members of parliament every day trying to get reasonable aged-care services for their parents or their family members. Every day, my office and other offices in this place are taking calls from people desperate to get their loved ones home care packages. It is about time the government did something about this. It has been leaked to the Sunday papers to say that there are going to be home care packages in the budget tonight. That is welcome, but it's really not going to fool older Australians into thinking that this government does care about older Australians or has been focused on them for the last six years, because we know, with all the internal chaos and division, the government has been only focused on itself. Any increases tonight in home care packages will be really about the government trying to save itself and not about older Australians. 18:35 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck The Australian population is ageing, and senior Australians and their families deserve to have access to high-quality aged care and services when they need them. Integral to this is supporting approved providers to make residential aged-care places ready for use as quickly as possible. The comments that were offered by the shadow minister are not a true reflection of the reality that has occurred since the Productivity Commission report. The challenges that are embedded in the aged-care sector arise from the time of the Productivity Commission report, the choosing of its recommendations that Labor, at the time, thought were appropriate, and inadequate funding that has been provided over that period of time. In addition, at the time, there was a reduction to the bottom-line budget by Labor over three consecutive years. I won't go into the level of funding. It was never put back in. Our coalition government has focused on increasing the spend on aged care—$5 billion in the last budget. There will be a continuation, in the forward years, of our commitment to improving the outcomes for senior Australians. The royal commission was not called because the system failed. The royal commission was called to address the structural flaws that exist within the aged-care sector. The commentary around the loss of funding is to do with inappropriate behaviour by providers against the budget that was set within the budgetary processes. Labor's continued claims were refuted by Fact Check on two occasions. It made it very clear that the statements were not the truth, because the budget for aged care has continually improved, and it continues to grow. Ms Collins HWM It's in black and white in your own budget statements. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The minister has the call. Mr WYATT M3A The portfolio budget statements show the increase in budget expenditure by our government, unlike what the shadow minister says. We will take the construct and build it into a very simple process of providing the authority of the parliament to move provisionally allocated places to areas of need that are important, because, at the moment, we can't do that. This enables it. Constructing aged-care homes is a difficult, time-consuming and expensive exercise. It's not uncommon for providers to finish their aged-care homes with fewer rooms than originally intended, due to either planning or construction issues. Where this is the case, the Aged Care Act needs to be flexible enough to allow these leftover places to be moved to another suitable location. Similarly, a provider may find a more suitable or affordable location for an aged-care home a few minutes drive away from the planning region to which the places were originally allocated. Again, the act needs to be flexible enough to allow this. The amendments within this bill add to the flexibility to act by allowing provisionally allocated residential aged-care places to be moved from one region to another where a provider can demonstrate that the movement is in the interests of aged-care consumers, that there is a clear need for places in the new region and that it is not detrimental to the region to which the provisionally allocated places are currently allocated. This change is in the best interests of all older Australians and the broader community. It will remove a potential barrier to the community accessing residential aged care, thereby aligning with the government's commitment to ensuring delivery of high-quality aged-care services when and where they're needed. I thank the members and senators for their contributions to the debate on this bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 72 18:39 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management and Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019 72

Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management and Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019

Second Reading 72 18:40 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I rise to speak to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management and Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019. Labor have serious concerns about the cashless welfare card, and we oppose its rollout nationally. We have always opposed a national rollout of the card. Labor have always said that we will support evidence based approaches to addressing the challenges that these local communities face, and we will do it in consultation and partnership with these local communities. This bill extends funding of the cashless debit card trials in Ceduna, the East Kimberley and the Goldfields until 30 June 2020. The trials in these areas are currently scheduled to end on 1 July 2019. There is also a trial in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay; however, the end date for that trial is already 30 June 2020. This bill also extends the funding for the Cape York Welfare Reform initiative until 1 July 2020. That funding currently expires on 1 July 2019. We believe that, if a community want to try something new to tackle social issues, it's not for this parliament to stand in their way. For this reason, Labor supported the introduction of the trials in the first two trial sites, Ceduna, in South Australia, and the East Kimberley, in Western Australia. However, Labor have not been able to satisfy ourselves through our own consultations that this same community desire was present in the other trial sites—that is, the Goldfields and Bundaberg-Hervey Bay. For this reason, Labor did not support the introduction of the cashless debit card to the other trial sites. With the Prime Minister reported to have confirmed today that the election could be as late as 25 May, the timing of this bill puts the parliament in a really difficult position. I want to stress that the timing puts us in an incredibly difficult position. That is because, regardless of the people's position on the cashless debit card, funding for communities is likely to run out in a matter of weeks. Without any prospect of sorting out a transition to alternative arrangements, this could be very disruptive to those locals. The government has included in this bill the extension of the Cape York Welfare Reform initiative, an approach which does have a level of community support and which cannot be simply left unfunded in a matter of weeks. Since the introduction of the cashless debit card trials, the government has continually failed to be up-front about the full costs of implementing the cashless debit card. In addition, Labor has become increasingly concerned about the Liberals' persistent clinging to the deeply flawed ORIMA evaluation. The Prime Minister and his conservative government have continued to use this report to sing the praises of the cashless debit card and mislead Australians about the extent of its success. Leading academics have referred to the comments made by the government as 'extremely misleading' and 'perplexing'. The Auditor-General found deep inconsistencies with the ORIMA evaluation. The government must stop relying on this report to justify its increasingly outlandish claims about the success of the cashless debit card trials. At a recent Senate inquiry into this bill, the committee heard evidence that in some trial sites the way the cashless debit card has been rolled out and the period it has been in operation preclude a proper piece of evaluation of its impact. We are no longer talking about trials in some sites but a government that is looking to entrench a policy without proving that it works. There have now been a number of inquiries into the cashless debit card scheme and the committee has continued to hear mixed evidence about the card. Some think it has been beneficial to their communities. Others think it has made existing problems worse. Indigenous leader and Foundation Chair of Australian Indigenous Studies at the University of Melbourne Professor Marcia Langton has said the cashless debit card is a failure. She said because the local community was not involved in the policy, the policy failed. One of the community leaders in Kununurra who initially supported the introduction of the trial, Mr Desmond Hill, has since withdrawn his support. Mr Hill told the committee that one of the conditions community leaders had, when agreeing to the East Kimberley becoming the trial site, was that people should be able to apply to leave the trial. Another Indigenous leader in the East Kimberley, Ian Trust, who remains a supporter of the cashless debit card, told the committee that he was not opposed to people being able to come off the card in some circumstances. The government has failed to properly provide this option. People who do the right thing have been unfairly stigmatised by being forced to take part in the cashless debit card trial, which is targeting behaviours that they themselves don't engage with in the first place. Labor will move an amendment in the Senate to allow people to get off the cashless debit card in certain circumstances. The amendment will allow people to come off the card if they can demonstrate reasonable and responsible management of their financial affairs, taking into account these points: the interests of any children for whom they are responsible; lawful behaviour; risk of homelessness; health and safety of the individual and the community; the responsibilities and circumstances of the participant; and engagement in community, job search and work. Local community panels will be responsible for approving applications for people to leave the trial, but, where a panel is not in place, the Department of Social Services will make the decision. At its recent inquiry, the committee heard from a number of witnesses about the lack of evidence supporting broad based, compulsory income management. It has been revealed that the government itself, or at least the Public Service, certainly acknowledges this. Late last year, in a document presented to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Australian government wrote: 'There are more positive results associated with people who volunteer, as they have made a choice to change their behaviour and receiver assistance. Positive results have been found by a social worker or a child protection officer.' Anti-Poverty Network SA told the Senate committee about a woman they had met in Ceduna who used to be able to purchase things online. Because of the cashless debit card, she is no longer able to do so. The network told the committee that this woman was never drunk and never had drugs or anything like that. It's just an inhibitive way of life for her now. Why should someone who has never engaged in binge drinking or taking illicit drugs be forced onto a cashless debit card that was introduced to address these behaviours? The answer is simple: they should not. We call on the government to vote with us in the Senate so that people who do not need to be on the cashless debit card no longer have to be. Labor has never supported the rollout of the cashless debit card nationally. We will not proceed with the government's plan to roll out the card and its harsh policies, including across the Northern Territory. Labor will not support the expansion of the cashless debit card and this form of income management to new communities unless the community wants the card and there is informed community consent. I want to really emphasise that just for a moment. Labor does not believe that parliaments or governments should stand in the way of communities who are properly consulted and give informed community consent if they want the card. That is not our role. In Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, where the rollout of the cashless debit card is only partially implemented, Labor will stop the rollout and take a case management approach to putting in place alternative support for people already on the card and invest in support services and programs that work, if we are afforded government. In Ceduna, the East Kimberley and the Goldfields, where the rollout of the cashless debit card is complete, Labor will work with local communities to establish whether there is ongoing community consent. Where necessary, Labor will work with communities on alternative supports and programs, acknowledging that there are serious and complex social issues that will require commitment, time and resources to address. At all times Labor will consult properly with the local community, and we acknowledge that this will take some time. Labor will take an evidence based approach to policy and to income management. We will not demonise social security recipients, like this government. I re-emphasise that we will seek to move an amendment in the other place that will give the capacity for people to come off the card in certain circumstances that I have outlined. If those circumstances are met, there will be a local community panel in place that can facilitate a person coming off the card. Where there is not a panel in place, it will be done through the department of social security. That is, in essence, the amendment that we will move in the upper house. I do hope it is successful. We very much recognise that in Ceduna, the East Kimberley and the Goldfields, where the rollout of the cashless debit card is complete, it would be extremely disruptive to cease those trials now. Given the timing of the coming election and the uncertainty around that, we believe that we are taking the responsible approach in continuing those trials for a set period of time and, hopefully, if the Senate amendment is successful, giving people who do not need to be on the card the capacity to come off the card. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes the conservative Government's continued, false assertion that the widely discredited Orima Evaluation provides proof that the cashless debit card is effective, which experts have labelled 'extremely misleading' and 'perplexing'; (2) notes the conservative Government's ongoing failure to provide details about the costs of extending the cashless debit card trials; and (3) criticises the Government for its irresponsible and unproven approach to policy making and its obsession with demonising income support recipients". The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Ms Collins HWM I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Barton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 18:53 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I rise to speak on behalf of the Hon. Paul Fletcher MP, the Minister for Families and Social Services. The Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management and Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019 extends the cashless debit card program for a further year in the first three sites of Ceduna, the East Kimberley and the Goldfields under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. This will allow the cashless debit card trial to operate in all sites until 30 June 2020. The bill will also extend income management in Cape York for a further year up to 30 June 2020. These measures aim to reduce the devastating effects of alcohol, drug and gambling abuse. The evidence shows that it is working, with reductions across the board. The continuation of the cashless debit card and the Cape York Income Management demonstrates the Morrison government's commitment to providing a sustainable social welfare safety net, reducing social harm in areas with high levels of welfare dependency and supporting vulnerable people, families and communities. I would like to thank all those who have contributed to the debate. I see the member for Grey in the chamber, who has been an advocate and a strong supporter of the trial site in Ceduna. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 74 18:55 Mr IRONS HYM Swan by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit 74 18:55 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce by leave—I wish to make a statement on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit concerning the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office for 2019-20. Each year, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is required by legislation to consider the draft budget estimates of the PBO and Australian National Audit Office and make recommendations to both houses of parliament. I'm sure it's a highlight of budget night for everyone! The committee takes this responsibility— Mr Laundy interjecting— Mr HILL 86256 That's why the gallery's full, Member for Reid. They're filling up. They're here to hear the statement! The committee takes this responsibility very seriously, and the reason for that is, of course, that it is an integrity measure to help protect— Mr Laundy 247130 I'm going to miss you, Jules. Mr HILL 86256 I'll miss you too. It is to protect the independence of the Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Budget Office and make transparent any changes which the government may then make to their budget, which will be handed down in just a short while. It's a baseline, if you like, for members and senators to measure the appropriation given to these offices. The respective acts of the Auditor-General and Parliamentary Budget Officer, as well as the committee's own legislation, require each of those officers to provide to the committee all information that would assist the committee in making its recommendations to the parliament. So I rise today to fulfil this requirement and make a statement on whether the committee considers that the proposed funding for these officers is sufficient to carry out their respective mandates, and I'll go to each in turn. The Australian National Audit Office, the ANAO, has advised the committee that it is not seeking supplementation in the 2019-20 budget, but it has advised that the ANAO expects that it will require new policy funding in the future, which is a change since last year. The Auditor-General has advised the committee that approval has been sought for an operating loss in the 2018-19 year by virtue of accessing the prior year's unspent appropriations to meet resourcing pressures. The ANAO's operating loss amounts to $3.13 million, plus depreciation of $1.46 million, for a total operating deficit of $4.6 million. This will be funded from the ANAO's accumulated reserves. The ANAO has estimated that its total ordinary annual appropriations from government will be $69.8 million for 2019-20. That's the baseline, if you like, that members can consider the budget documents against. The ANAO has advised that its transition to a new way of working will require a total investment of $13.2 million over two years, including capital investments of $11.9 million and $1.3 million in operating expenses for accommodation and IT related costs. The committee endorses the proposed budget for the ANAO in 2019-20 and thanks the ANAO for the professionalism it continues to demonstrate in supporting public accountability and transparency. In relation to the Parliamentary Budget Office, the committee has been informed that the Parliamentary Budget Office has sought supplementation in the 2019-20 budget to continue to support the current level of service that it provides to the parliament. The PBO's expenses for 2019-20 total $8.69 million, and if the funding is approved it will enable the PBO to maintain current staffing levels and to invest in additional data resources, specialist advice and software over the forward estimates period. The JCPAA has considered this request and wishes to convey to the parliament its support for the PBO's proposal and the confidence of the committee that this matter has been given full and proper consideration. In this context, the committee also wishes to again acknowledge the important work done by the PBO and highlight its contribution to both the parliament and the broader community in delivering independent and high-quality fiscal analysis and research. On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I also take this opportunity to emphasise the accountability of both the ANAO and the PBO to the parliament, and I'll choose these words carefully as the Chair is reading the same to the Senate. I've received advice from the clerks of both houses endorsing the committee's position that it is the responsibility of both the Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide the JCPAA with all the information necessary for the committee to consider their respective budget estimates. This enables the committee to fulfil its responsibility to appropriately advise the parliament on the budget submissions put forward by both agencies. To not dwell on that, I just refer members to my personal explanation which I made to the House last May, which may explain the importance of and some controversy over the committee's position, given the bit of a debacle that happened last year. In conclusion, the committee will continue to closely monitor the work programs and draft budget estimates of the PBO and the ANAO. The committee is strongly of the view that, as independent authorities and officers of the parliament, the PBO and the ANAO need to be sufficiently funded to fulfil their legislative requirements in order to fulfil their obligations to the parliament, and the committee looks forward to seeing the details of their respective budgets when announced this evening. The final matter is the appointment of an independent auditor of the ANAO. Under the Auditor-General Act, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is required to approve the appointment of a new independent auditor of the Australian National Audit Office. The Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act requires that the committee report its decision to the parliament. I can confirm to the parliament that the committee has approved the appointment of Ms Eileen Hoggett as independent auditor of the ANAO. The independent auditor is appointed from outside of government to act on a part-time basis to serve as an external auditor to the Audit Office—the auditor who audits the auditor, basically. As KPMG's national partner in charge of external audit and chair of KPMG's audit committee, Ms Hoggett brings suitable experience to this important position, and the JCPAA looks forward to seeing the results of her work. While noting Ms Hoggett's experience and suitability for the role, the committee has also communicated its view that, at the time of the beginning of the process of appointing the next independent auditor, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet should explore ways to seek applicants for this position from a wider group of possible applicants, not just the big four accounting firms—to look at SMEs. The committee has also recommended that, at the next review of the Auditor-General Act, this matter be given closer examination. I ask leave of the House to present a copy of my statement. Mr Laundy 247130 Leave is definitely granted. Mr HILL 86256 I present a copy of my statement. I'll give you a signed one if you like! The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D I thank the honourable member for Bruce. Order! The chair will be resumed at 7.30 pm. Sitting suspended from 19 : 02 to 19 : 30 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 76

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

First Reading 76 Second Reading 76 19:31 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Tonight, I announce that the Budget is back in the black and Australia is back on track. For the first time in 12 years, our nation is again paying its own way. We have made real progress, but we know the job is not done. Australia is stronger than it was when we came to government six years ago. Growth is higher. Unemployment is lower. There are fewer people on welfare. There are a record number of Australians with a job. School and hospital funding are at record levels. And the Budget is stronger. This is our record. But Australia does face some serious challenges. The global economy is slowing. Communities are feeling the impacts of flood, fire and drought. Families face cost of living pressures. And every one of us wants to see wages growing faster. But let me be clear: the answer to these challenges is not higher taxes. The answer is a stronger and more competitive economy, with lower taxes and more jobs. This Budget builds on our plan for a stronger economy. A stronger economy that benefits you – your family, your business, your community, your country. The plan The plan I outline tonight does this in three ways. First, it restores our nation's finances. Without increasing taxes. Second, it strengthens our economy and creates more jobs through a significant new skills and infrastructure agenda. Without increasing taxes. And third, it guarantees essential services like hospitals, schools and aged care, while tackling the cost of living. All without increasing taxes. Our plan is shaped by our values. And our values embrace all Australians. Not just some of them. We believe in: Reward for effort. The power of aspiration and enterprise. Upholding personal responsibility. And always providing a helping hand to those who need it. We want Australians to have a go and we want Australians to get a fair go. Our commitment to fairness means the next generation not having to pick up the tab for the last. This requires budget discipline. And this much at least we owe our children. Restoring our nation' s finances So, tonight, I am pleased to announce a budget surplus of $7.1 billion. A $55 billion turnaround on the deficit we inherited six years ago. In 2020-21, a surplus of $11 billion. In 2021-22, a surplus of $17.8 billion. In 2022-23, a surplus of $9.2 billion. A total of $45 billion of surpluses over the next four years. Surpluses will continue to build toward one per cent of GDP within a decade. As we climb the mountain and reach our goal of eliminating Commonwealth net debt by 2030 or sooner. Only one side of politics can do this, because only one side of politics has done this. John Howard and Peter Costello paid off Labor's debt. And tonight the Morrison Government sets a path to do it again, without increasing taxes. This matters because over the last year the interest bill on the national debt was $18 billion. And this was in a low interest rate environment. This is money that could have built 500 schools or a world-class hospital in every state and territory. We are reducing the debt and this interest bill. Not through higher taxes but by responsible budget management and by growing the economy. Strengthening the economy Tonight I am announcing the next stage in our economic plan to make Australia even stronger. Building more infrastructure to relieve the congestion in our cities. Equipping more workers with better skills to meet future needs. And lowering taxes. Because we want Australians to earn more and we want Australians to keep more of what they earn. Delivering tax relief That's why last year we passed into law a three step plan to deliver $144 billion in personal income tax cuts. First, providing immediate relief to address cost of living pressures. Second, protecting income earners from bracket creep. Third, abolishing an entire tax bracket, simplifying the system, incentivising and rewarding hard work. Tonight, I can announce that we will go even further. Two significant changes will deliver $158 billion of tax relief for hard-working Australians. These are the largest personal income tax cuts since the Howard government. The Government is more than doubling the low and middle income tax offset from 2018-19. Taxpayers earning up to $126,000 a year – including teachers, tradies and nurses – will receive a tax cut. For a single income family, this means up to $1,080 in your pocket per year. And for families on a dual income, up to $2,160. This is money that could go towards your monthly mortgage payment, your quarterly power bill or your yearly car insurance. More than 10 million taxpayers will benefit, with 4.5 million receiving the full amount. This relief will flow quickly and be available to Australians after tax returns for the 2018-19 year are submitted in 13 weeks' time. This tax relief will lift household incomes, ease cost of living pressures and boost spending at local businesses. The second change I announce tonight delivers long-term structural reform by lowering the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent from 1 July 2024. This will cover all taxpayers earning between $45,000 and $200,000 and will mean that 94 per cent of taxpayers will pay no more than 30 cents in the dollar. Following these changes, our tax system will remain highly progressive. With the top five per cent of taxpayers paying one third of all income tax collected. And someone earning $200,000 paying 10 times as much tax as someone on $45,000. But unlike those opposite, we believe there should be limits to the amount you are taxed. That's why, under the Morrison Government, tax as a share of the economy will not rise above the 23.9 per cent cap. We will put a speed limit on taxes, while our opponents will put a speed limit on the economy. Mr Speaker, taxes will always be lower under the Coalition. Backing small business And tonight, I also announce additional tax relief for small and medium-sized businesses. Small businesses are the engine-room of our economy. They are integral to every local community. People running a small business put their livelihoods on the line. They start early and finish late. They manage the front desk and the back office. They pay their workers first and take their own wages last. We want small businesses to prosper, and we are backing them to do so. Cutting their taxes to 25 per cent. Increasing their access to finance with a new $2 billion fund. Ensuring small business is paid on time, both by government and big business. And from tonight the instant asset write-off will be increased and expanded. It will be increased from $25,000 to $30,000, and it can be used every time an asset under that amount is purchased. Allowing a café to get a new fridge or grill, a plumber to buy new tools or a courier a new van. The instant asset write-off will also be expanded to businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million. This will cover an additional 22,000 businesses, employing 1.7 million Australians. Already more than 350,000 businesses have taken up the instant-asset write off. And now, even more will have the chance to do so. Businesses are also benefiting from the free trade agreements this Government has secured. China, Japan, Korea, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and now Indonesia. Tonight, we provide an additional $60 million for Export Market Development Grants to allow small and medium-sized businesses to capitalise on those opportunities. We believe in lower taxes but we also believe everyone should pay their fair share. The Government has been at the forefront of global efforts to crack down on multinational tax avoidance. We have implemented tough new laws, which helped raise more than $12 billion. Tonight we provide additional support to the Tax Office to continue these efforts. We also provide additional resources to our financial regulators following the Banking Royal Commission. This will strengthen the financial system and deliver better outcomes for all Australians. Investing in infrastructure A strong economy requires lower taxes. A strong economy depends on small business. And a stronger economy needs ongoing investment in roads, rail, bridges, dams and ports. Tonight, I can announce that the Coalition Government is boosting our infrastructure spending to $100 billion over the decade. All without increasing taxes. Cranes, hard hats and heavy machinery will be seen across the country, as we build Australia for current and future generations. We will deliver new infrastructure projects: To ease congestion in our cities. To unlock the potential of our regions. To better manage population growth. To improve safety on our roads. We know you want to be there for the school drop off, to help the kids with their homework and to spend more time together at the dinner table. Tonight, I announce we are increasing the Urban Congestion Fund four-fold from $1 billion to $4 billion. This fund will focus on immediate, practical measures to cut travel times within our cities. Removing bottlenecks and improving travel corridors. It will include a $500 million Commuter Car Park Fund that will improve access to public transport hubs and take thousands of cars off the roads. Central to our plan is a long-term fast-rail vision for Australia. To make this vision a reality, we are providing $2 billion in this budget for fast-rail between Melbourne and Geelong, slashing travel times in half. Work is underway to develop fast-rail corridors in other areas: Sydney to Wollongong, Newcastle, Bathurst, Orange and Parkes. Brisbane to the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast. Melbourne to Shepparton, Traralgon and Wodonga. We are getting on with the job of building infrastructure. With funding in this Budget for the Tonkin Highway in Perth, the North-South Corridor in Adelaide, the Gateway Motorway in Brisbane and the Freight Rail Revitalisation Program in Tasmania. It was this government that ended 50 years of indecision and started construction on the Nancy-Bird Walton Airport in Western Sydney. It was this Government that committed $5 billion to build the Melbourne airport rail link. And it was this Government which is investing $1.4 billion to build Snowy 2.0. Modernising a national icon and building on the vision of Menzies and Chifley. Our regions and their vitality have always shaped the Australian story. In this budget, there is an additional: $2.2 billion for safer roads. $1 billion to improve freight routes and access to ports. $100 million for regional airports. These investments make our regions stronger and our country stronger. Over the past year drought and flood have taken a heavy toll on our agricultural towns and communities. These communities have shown strength and resilience, as all Australians have stood with them. The Morrison government is providing $6.3 billion in drought support and $3.3 billion for those affected by flood. Expanding the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund. Establishing the Future Drought Fund. Extending the Farm Household Allowance. And supporting graziers through a new North Queensland Livestock Industry Recovery Agency. Tonight I can announce that we will establish a new $3.9 billion Emergency Response Fund that will ensure additional resourcing is available to support future natural disaster recovery efforts. Agriculture, like other primary industries that helped build this country, must be recognised and valued. Our economic plan is about driving all industries forward, not just a few of them. Investing in skills Mr Speaker, our people are our most valuable asset. We need to ensure all Australians of all ages have the skills they need for the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow. Tonight I can announce a new $525 million skills package. We will create 80,000 new apprenticeships in industries with skills shortages. We will double incentive payments to employers to $8,000 per placement. And these new apprentices—including bakers, bricklayers, carpenters and plumbers—will also receive a $2,000 incentive payment. The government will also work closely with industry to train Australians in areas of future high demand, including communications technology, advanced manufacturing and health services. We announce tonight 10 new training hubs connecting schools, local industries and young people in regional areas with high youth unemployment. We're also investing $62 million to boost literacy, numeracy and digital skills. And refocusing the job services model to provide more personalised support for disadvantaged job seekers. Mr Speaker, young Australians should have every chance of success when it comes to career opportunities in the digital age. Tonight we provide further funding to increase participation for women and girls in STEM. Complementing our Future Female Entrepreneurs Program, which is supporting 55,000 young women. We are also backing the industries of the future. We're investing $9 billion this year in science, research and technology, including its commercialisation. And we established the $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund, with dividends going to new clinical trials and research in areas such as tuberculosis and traumatic brain injury. There is also more than $400 million in this Budget for genomics research to unlock the secrets of our DNA. And $160 million for research to improve the health of Indigenous Australians. Investing in our young people Mr Speaker, as I said in my first speech in this place, education is the first defence of our nation. It is critical to our prosperity, to our harmony and to the advancement of Australia as a nation. While money is important, so too is the quality of education afforded to all Australians. Under our government, funding for public, independent and Catholic schools is at an all-time high and will continue to grow substantially in the decade ahead. We are committing around $300 billion to all schools, a total increase of 63 per cent. This is a real dividend from a strong economy and comes without increasing taxes. No one knows the needs of a local school better than the school community itself, its parents and its teachers. So tonight's Budget includes a new local school community program. Funding will be available for projects such as upgrades to libraries, classrooms and play equipment. This Budget also includes a new scholarship program for over 1,000 students to study in regional Australia each year. We want our children to get the best possible start in life. So tonight, I am announcing $453 million to once again extend pre-school education, enabling 350,000 children to receive 15 hours of quality early learning per week in the year before school. We will continue to work with the states and territories to support a longer-term plan. Lower taxes, more infrastructure, better skills and a quality education. This is our plan for a stronger economy that will help our nation reach its potential and enable every Australian to reach theirs. Guaranteeing essential services Mr Speaker, a strong economy is not an end in itself. It's what you do with it that counts. With a strong economy, we can guarantee the essential services that Australians need and deserve. Health is front of mind for all Australians, and this year the Government will spend more than $80 billion on healthcare. An amount that has increased every year we have been in government. More MRI machines. More life-changing medicines on the PBS. More funding for mental health. Better access to dental services. Better access to hospitals. And better access to regional GPs. In this Budget, we are: Funding upgrades to regional hospitals, the first being in Townsville. Establishing Australia's first comprehensive children's cancer centre in Sydney. Helping to build a new Brain and Spinal Ward in South Australia. In this Budget, we also list more medicines on the PBS to treat kidney, bladder, liver and skin cancer. And tonight, we announce the listing of Besponsa, a medicine for people with acute Leukaemia. Instead of costing $120,000 a course, patients will now have access to the medicine at a cost of only $6.50 per script for concession card holders and around $40 for general patients. This brings the total number of new listings to more than 2,000 since we came to government, costing more than $10 billion. A real and profound dividend from a strong economy, and done without increasing taxes. Under the Coalition, Medicare is guaranteed. Bulk-billing is at a record high. And we are adding new services to the Medicare Benefits Schedule, including diagnostic imaging for breast cancer and heart health checks. We're establishing a Heart Kids Project for new research to treat and prevent heart disease which affects thousands of Australian children. Mr Speaker, mental health is an issue of deep concern to all Australians. It is a national tragedy that we lose so many people to suicide and that so many people live a life of quiet desperation. Tonight I say: we hear you and we are with you. This issue demands our ongoing attention and resources. We must work together to combat youth suicide as a national priority. In this Budget, the Government will invest $461 million in Australia's most significant youth mental health and suicide prevention strategy. 30 new headspace centres. Reduced waiting lists. More support for Indigenous youth including through mentoring and peer support. Treatment for early psychosis. A perinatal mental health program. And extra counselling services for communities who have suffered from natural disasters. All of this is about looking after each other. It reflects the best of Australia and its values. Looking after older Australians Mr Speaker, a stronger economy also allows us to invest more in looking after older Australians. Australians deserve to age with dignity and have earned the right to expect the highest standards of aged care services. In some cases, these services have badly let Australians down. That is why we established the Royal Commission into aged care. This Budget includes a significant investment of $725 million that will deliver: 10,000 new home care packages. Bringing to 40,000 the number of new packages announced over the last 18 months. Additional financial support for residential care. A capital works program with a focus on regional Australia. And a series of new measures to improve the quality and safety of aged care services. We achieve this without increasing taxes and without raiding retirees' hard earned savings. Mr Speaker, we also recognise the pressure energy bills place on those who can least afford it. That's why we are providing additional cost of living relief for pensioners through a one-off Energy Assistance Payment of $75 for singles and $125 for couples. This payment will be paid this financial year and comes on top of other actions the Government has taken to reduce power bills. Mr Speaker, we know that carers are our nation's unsung heroes. Their job is 24/7 and emotionally as well as physically demanding. Many carers need and deserve a rest. So tonight we are announcing $84 million to enable carers to leave a loved one in safe hands and get a much needed break. Mr Speaker, supporting people with disability is a moral imperative, recognised by both sides of this House. Growing to $22 billion, it takes a strong economy to fund the NDIS fully and sustainably. This is what our Government has done. In this Budget, we have also set aside half a billion dollars for a Royal Commission into the mistreatment of people with disability. Affordable housing is another priority for this Government. Just over a week ago, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, established by this Government, successfully issued the largest social bond in Australia's history. Over $300 million was raised, providing a significant injection into the community housing sector. Protecting our environment Mr Speaker, we all have an important responsibility to protect our environment and address climate change. This Budget includes a $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package – $2 billion of which will go to practical emission reduction activities, working with farmers and Indigenous communities. Through our measures, as we have done in the past, we will beat our international emissions reduction targets. Australians have been gifted a precious inheritance. Tonight I announce a $100 million new Environment Restoration Fund to deliver large-scale environmental projects. Protecting the habitats of our threatened species, our coasts, our waterways and cleaning up waste. It will complement a new Communities' Environment Program, providing smaller grants for projects that target local community priorities. Ensuring safe communities Mr Speaker, all Australians have a right to feel safe in their community. In the largest Commonwealth investment in women's safety, in this Budget we are providing $328 million to fund prevention, response and recovery initiatives. Bringing our total investment in this area to $840 million since we came to government. There is new funding for the 1800RESPECT helpline, more safe places and training for health and other service providers. But we must also change attitudes, as the path to violence begins with disrespect. This Budget also provides for a new round of the Safer Communities Fund, assisting religious organisations, schools and other organisations to install fencing, lighting and security cameras. We also have to do more to keep our kids safe online and tackle cyber-bullying. Just as we teach our kids how to cross the street, we now need to teach them how to sensibly and safely use the web. In this Budget, we are funding new practical training to give kids, parents and teachers the knowledge and skills necessary to keep our children safe online. Mr Speaker, the Government's cashless debit card is delivering life-changing outcomes in child welfare and the safety of communities. And so, in this Budget, we extend its roll out to other areas. It is already making a real difference, halving the frequency of alcohol consumption, gambling and drug abuse. Mr Speaker, drugs like ice and heroin have a devastating impact on families. Tonight, we announce $337 million in new funding for our comprehensive drug strategy. Cracking down on outlaw motorcycle gangs and their drug supply chains. And improving treatment and rehabilitation services to support those affected by the scourge of drugs. Our law enforcement agencies are also on the front line of countering terrorism and extremism. We are providing the Federal Police and ASIO with $570 million to keep Australians safe from these threats. In this budget, we are also allocating an additional $680 million to support our service men and women deployed abroad. Mr Speaker, our Government also recognises the importance of supporting our veterans. They have served our nation, defending our values and our interests. In this budget we are adding to the $278 million invested in our last two budgets to improve the wellbeing of our veterans and their families. Economic outlook Mr Speaker, the fundamentals of the Australian economy are sound, but there are genuine and clear risks emerging both at home and abroad. The residential housing market has cooled, credit growth has eased and we are yet to see the full impact of flood and drought on the economy. Global trade tensions remain, the Chinese economy has slowed and there has been a loss of momentum in Japan, Europe and other advanced economies. Notwithstanding these challenges, it is a testament to the strength of the Australian economy that it is in its 28th year of consecutive economic growth. Our economic plan will see this continue. GDP growth is expected to pick up to 2¾ per cent in 2019-20. We delivered ahead of schedule on our promise to create one million new jobs. And we now commit to creating a further 1.25 million new jobs over the next five years. Conclusion Mr Speaker, six years ago when we came to government: The economy was weakening, unemployment was rising and the budget was deteriorating. Since then, we have made the right choices, the difficult but necessary choices and our economic plan is working. Tonight marks the next stage in that plan. The first surplus in 12 years, and the first repayment made on Labor's debt. Lower taxes for 10 million Australians and three million small businesses. 80,000 new apprenticeships. A $100 billion National Infrastructure Plan. Record spending on schools and hospitals. We have done all of this without increasing taxes. The Australian people can trust that: Under the Coalition, the economy will always be stronger, allowing you and your family to get ahead. Under the Coalition, our borders will always be more secure. Under the Coalition, there will always be more jobs and lower taxes. And under the Coalition, essential services will always be guaranteed. Mr Speaker, tonight we have set the course for an even better and brighter Australia. I commend this Budget to the House. Debate adjourned. BUDGET 84 BUDGET Documents 84 20:11 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell For the information of honourable members, I present the following documents in connection with the budget of 2019-20: Budget strategy and outlook—Budget paper No. 1—2019-20. Budget measures—Budget paper No. 2—2019-20. Federal Financial Relations—Budget paper No. 3—2019-20. Agency resourcing—Budget paper No. 4—2019-20. Documents made parliamentary papers in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 84 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Building Stronger Regional Communities 2019-20 84 20:12 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I present the following ministerial statement: Building stronger regional communities 2019-20, 2 April 2019. Details of the statement will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018. BILLS 84 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020 84

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020

First Reading 84 Second Reading 84 20:13 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, together with Appropriation Bill (No. 2) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 form the principal bills underpinning the government's budget. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $58.5 billion. This represents seven-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriations, and new measures since the 2018-19 additional estimates process. I will now outline the significant items provided for in this bill. First, the Department of Defence will receive almost $19.8 billion to protect and advance Australia's strategic interests through the provision of military capability, the promotion of security and stability, and the provision of support to the Australian community in accordance with government direction. Included in this amount is funding to support ongoing major defence operations, including operations Okra, Accordion, Highroad, Resolute and Manitou. Second, the Department of Social Services will receive approximately $5.7 billion, including funding for: the Commonwealth's contribution to the Fourth Action Plan to prevent violence against women and their children; the expansion of the cashless debit card to tackle drug, alcohol and gambling misuse; and the establishment of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Third, the Department of Health will receive approximately $6.3 billion to continue to strengthen health services for all Australians. This will include funding for new medical research, including: administration of the Medical Research Future Fund; better mental health and drug and alcohol support services, including the expansion of the national headspace network; further support for improved access to quality aged-care residential and home-care services; and workforce priorities, improved access to medicines and implementing the Sport 2030 National Sport Plan. Fourth, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will receive just under $3.2 billion to advance Australia's international, strategic, security and economic interests and to manage and distribute Australia's official development assistance. Fifth, the Department of Human Services will receive just under $2.7 billion to support individuals, families and communities to achieve greater self-sufficiency and providers and business through convenient and efficient service delivery. Sixth, the Department of Home Affairs will receive just over $2.2 billion, which includes funding for national security, the management of noncitizens within onshore and offshore detention, facilitation of people and goods across the border and the provision of refugee and humanitarian assistance. Finally, the Australian Taxation Office will receive just over $2.1 billion to manage Australia's taxation and superannuation systems, including through helping people understand their rights and obligations, improving ease of compliance and access to benefits and managing noncompliance with the law. In particular, the bill contains funding for the continuation of the Corporate Tax Avoidance Taskforce and the expansion of the Single Touch Payroll. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio budget statements tabled in the parliament. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 85

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

First Reading 85 Second Reading 85 20:17 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-20 along with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-20 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No.1) 2019-20 are the budget appropriation bills for this year. This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $7.4 billion. This represents seven-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriations and new measures since the additional estimates process. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) provides appropriations for 2019-20 for the operations of the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of Parliamentary Services and the Parliamentary Budget Office. This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $162 million. This represents seven-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriation and new measures since the 2018 additional estimates process. The most significant item in this bill is for the Department of Parliamentary Services, which will receive almost $127 million for the maintenance of the Australian Parliament House and to support the functions of parliament and parliamentarians through the provision of professional services, advice and facilities. This amount also includes funding to replace the original Australian Parliament House auxiliary power system, to ensure the continued supply of power for critical systems, and to upgrade the mobile phone antenna for the benefit of building occupants and visitors. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio budget statements tabled in the parliament. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2019 86

Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2019

First Reading 86 Second Reading 86 20:20 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families and seniors and pensioners in line with increases in the consumer price index. These changes will ensure that low-income households who did not pay the Medicare levy in the 2017-18 income year will generally continue to be exempt in the 2018-19 income year if their incomes have risen in line with, or by less than, the consumer price index. The Medicare levy low-income thresholds ensure that people who pay no personal income tax due to their eligibility for structural offsets—such as the low-income tax offset or the seniors and pensioners tax offset—generally do not incur the Medicare levy. The changes to the thresholds mean that no Medicare levy will be payable for individual taxpayers with a taxable income that does not exceed $22,398 in 2018-19 (increased from $21,980). Single seniors and pensioners with no dependants who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not incur a Medicare levy liability if their taxable income does not exceed $35,418 (increased from $34,758). Further, in combination with the individual thresholds, couples and families who are not eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined taxable income does not exceed $37,794 (increased from $37,089). Couples and families who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined taxable income does not exceed $49,304 (increased from $48,385). The thresholds for couples and families go up by $3,471 for each dependent child or student (increased from $3,406). The increase in thresholds will apply to the 2018-19 income year and future income years. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff Amendment (Craft Beer) Bill 2019 86

Customs Tariff Amendment (Craft Beer) Bill 2019

Second Reading 86 20:23 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler This legislation, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Craft Beer) Bill 2019, is parallel to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 and the Excise Tariff Amendment (Supporting Craft Brewers) Bill 2019. In those bills, the government is legislating amendments to the Excise Tariff Act and the Excise Act to extend concessional rates of excise to brewers that supply draft beer in kegs or other containers that have a capacity of eight litres or more. This bill contains separate amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to give effect to the measure concerning imported draft beer. Some in this House may remember that, in June 2017, I introduced a motion in support of the craft brewing industry—supported by many people on both sides of the parliament, it must be said—calling for legislative change to benefit our craft brewers. These people are small businesses. They operate now at the rate of a new one every six days in regional Australia, our cities and suburbs all around. They're employing locals, providing entertainment for local communities and providing jobs and economic growth. The fact is that the industry was being disadvantaged at the federal level by poor legislation related to the excise rates faced by independent brewers. I and the member for Hunter held a very effective forum at Wayward Brewing Co. in Camperdown in my electorate, during which we worked out a strategy and a campaign. I'm pleased that that campaign has been successful in delivering one step on the road to reform, because currently the rate of federal excise charged for a keg containing 50 litres of beer is less than the rate charged for a keg containing 30 litres. This does not make sense. In addition to this, the maximum tax rebate a brewery could receive per calendar year is $30,000. This compares, for example, with the wine industry's producer rebate, or WET, of some $350,000. One of the reforms that has occurred by regulation recently is to increase that to $100,000. That increase means literally every year a small craft brewing company, usually employing perhaps eight, a dozen or 20 people, is able to have $70,000 extra cash flow for their business and are able to employ more local people. I thank the Prime Minister and the government for adopting Labor policy on this measure. We've seen a number of Labor policies adopted tonight, it must be said, and this is just another one. Indeed, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and we take that on this side of the House. I thank those people across the parliament who campaigned for this reform, many of whom were on the backbench. The fact is that this isn't just a matter of economics. The difference between a 50-litre keg of beer and a 30-litre keg—and the reason the tax treatment disadvantages smaller craft brewers—is that a publican is far less likely to say, 'Yes, I'll give your beer a try and put your keg on,' if they have to have a 50-litre keg rather than a 30-litre keg because they'll always sell more of the mainstream products—Carlton or VB—than they will of a craft beer. The fact is also that many of the operators have told me it distorts employment. Because a craft brewery is not mechanised—unlike a mechanised, big operation run by a Lion Nathan—if the craft brewery wants to employ someone, the employee has to be able to physically carry a 50-litre keg of beer, which is a real challenge. That distorts the people who can work in the industry, so there are employment implications that are very important as well. The excise problem is that all beer of any alcohol percentage contained within a keg of over eight litres but below 48 is still taxed at a higher rate at the moment than kegs over 48 litres. This is because of historical overhang. The fact is that craft brewing is a relatively new industry at scale, but what we're seeing is that it doesn't matter whether it's in Grafton or in the Gold Coast or in Marrickville or in Wagga Wagga; right around Australia, this is a growing industry. The Excise Tariff Amendment (Supporting Craft Brewers) Bill 2019 is legislation that shouldn't be packaged alongside other bills to pass both houses, as that one has been. The government tried to push their agenda by including the bill with irrelevant legislation which, put simply—if you excuse the pun—doesn't pass the pub test. It was included with the be Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 that's about superannuation and allowing an increase in the maximum number of allowable members in self-managed super funds from four to six. It is unfortunate that the government put together bills that aren't related in an attempt to try to slide this through. Labor referred the bills to a Senate inquiry because of the lack of a relationship between the two pieces of legislation. I'm pleased that the coalition has seen the error of its ways and that the government has ensured that changes to the brewing sector can be finalised without debating unrelated and, frankly, unnecessary changes to self-managed superannuation funds. As a result, this legislation should be able to pass both houses of parliament and come into effect from the beginning of July. As of June 2018, there were some 547 independent breweries operating in Australia, and the sector continues to grow. The Independent Brewers Association has reported that each brewery employs an average of seven people. That is some 4,000 jobs and counting. Furthermore, independent breweries constitute 97 per cent of all licensed breweries in Australia. What really matters, though, is that 65 per cent of independent breweries are located in rural and regional areas of Australia, such as the Little Rivers Brewing Company in Scottsdale, Tasmania, which I visited with the member for Bass in 2017. This is a brewery that has become the centre of the local community. It's where people have birthday parties. It's where people have functions to celebrate anniversaries. Like in many places around Australia, it really is a focal point for that local community. Nationwide, the craft brewing sector was estimated to be worth some $518 million in 2018, an extraordinary increase of well over $100 million in the space of just two years. This is not to mention the potential for export value, particularly in Asia to our north. In China alone, it is estimated that the market for premium beer will be worth $35 billion in 2020. We have been very successful at exporting wine to the region, and there is no reason why we can't be just as successful with beer. As the shadow tourism minister, I can say that craft breweries are an important attraction as well. In my electorate, Dave's Brewery Tours book out well in advance. They book out some months in advance if you want to go on a tour on the weekend, and that's not surprising because in my electorate alone you have Willie the Boatman, the manufacturers of Albo Ale, and you have Batch Brewing, Sauce Brewing, Sunday Road Brewing, Wildflower, Young Henrys, Wayward Brewing, The Grifter, Malt Shovel, Akasha, Rocks Brewing, Staves, BlackFont Brewhouse and Stockade. It is, indeed, the craft beer capital of Australia, and I'm very proud. It is to craft beer what the Barossa Valley is to wine. Indeed, this time, instead of a campaign launch for the local election in Grayndler, I'm having a 'can-paign' launch on 24 April at Willie the Boatman. Albo Ale is going from long-neck bottles into cans, so we're combining the two events and having a 'can-paign' launch—perhaps, dare I say, Australia's first ever 'can-paign' launch. The fact is that this is an important industry. It's important for jobs. It's important for tourism. It's important for our economy. It's good that the government has recognised that. I will conclude with the words of Frank Zappa, who said: … you can't be a Real Country unless you have A BEER … This is indeed a real country. Beer is a part of our cultural history in this country. We should give support to those small businesses that are doing the right thing by their local communities by creating jobs and taking risks to make sure that those businesses are able to grow and thrive into the future. I commend the bill to the House. 20:34 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I acknowledge the contribution made by the shadow tourism minister. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Craft Beer) Bill 2019 amends the Custom Tariff Act 1995 to lower the rate of the excise equivalent customs duty applied to beer imported in containers of between eight and 48 litres. Currently, beer imported in containers that exceed 48 litres is subject to a lower rate of excise equivalent customs duty compared to the same beer imported in smaller containers. So, from 1 July 2019, this bill extends the lower excise equivalent rate currently applied to beers in containers over 48 litres to beers in containers of eight litres or more, provided the container is designed to connect to a pressurised gauge or pump device system. The amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 correspond with the proposed amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921, which applies to the equivalent domestically produced goods. This means imported goods will continue to be subject to the same tax treatment as the equivalent domestically produced goods. Lowering the excise rate for domestically produced beer in containers between eight and 48 litres will allow craft brewers, who typically use these smaller containers, to benefit from lower rates. Extending the lower rate for improved beer will ensure that Australia is fully compliant with our international commitment. I welcome the support of Labor for such an important bill. In particular, I would like to make mention of craft brewers in my electorate. Recently, Scenic Rim Brewing, one of our many craft brewers, was nominated by the Scenic Rim Regional Council for the business excellence awards. They will appreciate this bill that has gone before the House and been accepted by both sides wholeheartedly. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 88 20:36 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019, Excise Tariff Amendment (Supporting Craft Brewers) Bill 2019 88

Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019

Excise Tariff Amendment (Supporting Craft Brewers) Bill 2019

Second Reading 88 20:37 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The Treasury Laws (Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 and the Excise Tariff Amendment (Supporting Craft Brewers) Bill 2019 are parallel to the Customs Tariff Amendment (Craft Beer) Bill 2019 debated by the House earlier. That bill contained the separate amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to give effect to measures concerning imported draught beer. With these bills, the government is legislating amendments to the Excise Tariff Act and the Excise Act to extend concessional rates of excise to domestic brewers that supply draught beer in kegs or other containers with a capacity of eight litres or more that are designed for use with pressurised gas delivery systems or pump delivery systems. The amendments made by the bills apply to relevant goods entered for home consumption on or after 1 July 2019. From the outset, I want to note that Labor supports the amendments to the excise regime as it affects craft beer. I also want to note that it is my belief that none of these reforms would have happened without the campaigning and advocacy of Labor members—in particular, the previous speaker, the member for Grayndler, who has been intensely passionate and advocated for this sensible reform for many years, to the extent that he now has his own craft brew named after him in his electorate by Willy the Boatman. And I've got to say it's not a bad drop. I think it's the ultimate accolade for an Australian politician to have a beer named after you. It is something that Hawke's Brewing Co. in my electorate of Coogee have done in honour of former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, and it is now something that the member for Grayndler has to his name as well. Australia's annual consumption of beer has been declining in recent years. Despite this, the craft brewing industry is growing strongly and has taken nearly 10 per cent of the national market. The industry is worth about $400 million a year and, according to Austrade, there are about 200 small breweries throughout Australia. The research shows that people in their 20s and 30s in particular are attracted to boutique brews for their variety of tastes, as well as the fact that they are produced locally in their own communities and that they support employment and jobs in those communities. Craft beer looms as an economic opportunity that we cannot afford to ignore. Excise accounts for about 46 per cent of small brewers' costs—almost half of the cost to actually produce the beer. This makes no sense. It must be reviewed. There's a huge potential in craft beer tourism, whereby operators set up walking tours where enthusiasts visit several breweries to sample different types of beer. Craft beer tours are already available in Sydney's inner west as well as in Adelaide and Melbourne and other parts of the country. The government caught up to Labor in 2018-19 in the budget, when there was included a measure to reduce the excise rate on draught beer and containers between eight and 48 litres designed to be connected to pressurised gas or pumped delivery systems to bring them into line with the lower excise rate currently applied to containers of 48 litres or more. The measures aim to support small brewers of boutique beers—commonly referred to as 'craft' beers—who typically are unable to manufacture or market beer in containers or kegs of 48 litres or more. The current higher excise rate on beer sold in containers that are less than 48 litres means that these small brewers are at a disadvantage when competing with larger brewers, who typically supply their beer in kegs larger than 48 litres. There are some other non-controversial measures featured in schedules 3 and 4 of this bill. Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to continue to provide Global Infrastructure Hub Ltd with an exemption from the liability to pay income tax on its ordinary and statutory income. Schedule 4 of the bill makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to legislation in the Treasury portfolio, and these amendments make minor technical changes to correct spelling errors and such. Labor supports these schedules. In conclusion, I want to make some quick comments about another issue which these bills deal with. Labor are always pleased to vote in favour of measures for which we've advocated. But I want to make this final observation. Despite the non-controversial nature of the overall craft excise measures, the government sought to poison the parallel domestic tax bills scheduled to be debated after this bill with an unnecessary and unrelated measure relating to self-managed superannuation funds. Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, the Income Tax Assessment Act and the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act to increase the maximum number of allowable members in SMSFs from four to six. Not only does it appear that no consultation was conducted with the SMSF sector regarding this change; the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services stated in a media update: Unlike Bill Shorten and the Labor party, who continue to unfairly target SMSFs, the Government recognises the valuable role SMSFs play in providing competition throughout the superannuation sector and the opportunity they provide Australians who want to take a more hands-on approach to their retirement. The government was ordinarily and originally looking to hold an uncontroversial measure supporting craft brewers hostage to a purely partisan and political policy that no-one asked for. The superannuation industry, the SMSF industry, didn't ask for this change. But the government tried to relate it to this craft brewers measures bill. And, as to that particular reform that I'm speaking of, Labor opposes schedule 1 of that bill. It's Labor's hope that the government removes that schedule and ensures that all related bills relating to craft beer pass as soon as possible, without controversy. 20:44 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo The electorate of Mayo is a hotspot for craft brewers and they are important in growing the tourism industry for us in our region. They complement our region's reputation for fine wines, gins, ciders and spirits. As a multitude of ministers can attest, I have been a very persistent advocate for a fair deal for the craft brewers in my electorate, so I warmly welcome the Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 and the related bill, which puts my key recommendation into law. I first wrote extensively to the then Treasurer, now Prime Minister, about the unique challenges that craft brewing businesses face: a thoroughly complex excise regime and the resultant cash flow management challenges that put a brake on expansion plans; market access concerns with pubs and clubs inevitability giving preferential treatment to the big market players; and, critically, a higher rate of excise being levied against the smaller kegs that craft brewers prefer to use. It is ridiculous and fundamentally unfair that a higher rate of tax existed on smaller kegs than on larger kegs. Of the multitude of issues faced by craft brewers, I made levelling this playing field my primary objective. I followed up on my correspondence with numerous meetings with government and I lodged detailed questions in writing on the Notice Paper. Finally, unrelenting persistence and the value of reasoned and logical policy reform shone through. It will come as no surprise that I warmly welcomed the government's decision and announcement to finally level this playing field. No longer would craft brewers have to pay more, simply because they wanted to ship their beer in smaller kegs. I know that I have not been the only advocate. I acknowledge in particular the member for Grayndler—I do not have a beer named after me! An honourable member: Yet! Ms SHARKIE 265980 Yet! I recognise the efforts of many in this chamber in getting a fair deal for craft brewers. I also want to acknowledge the efforts of Corinna and Frank from the award-winning Prancing Pony Brewery in Mount Barker. If you are in Mount Barker, please get along. It is a fantastic venue. They first approached me to discuss the challenges their sector faces. Corinna and Frank have spoken to me about how big a win these changes are for them and their business. The changes give them the opportunity to sell their products into smaller venues and have the occupational health and safety advantage of moving kegs that weigh 35 kilograms rather than 65 kilograms. This legislation is the culmination of the collective efforts of many in this chamber and beyond this chamber and I therefore commend the bill to the House. 20:47 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright Thank you. Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have made a contribution to the debate tonight. We have heard from those on the other side, who have espoused—and rightly so—that they have a beer named after them. I have mentioned the Scenic Rim Brewery in my electorate before. Whilst I don't believe I have a beer brand named after me, they do have a line called the Fat Man, so it is quite possible that I do have some notoriety in that place! The Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 has four schedules. Schedule 2 to the bill, together with the Excise Tariff Amendment (Supporting Craft Brewers) Bill 2019, extends supports to the craft brewers. Schedule 3 to the bill extends the income exemption for the G20 Global Infrastructure Hub for an additional four years. Schedule 4 to the bill introduces minor technical and machinery amendments to the Treasury portfolio legislation. I also foreshadow the government's amendments for removing schedule 1 from the bill. Schedule 1 would have increased from four to six the maximum number of members allowed in self-managed super funds and small APRA funds. It is regrettable that the opposition would not support a sensible change to that law and thus provide additional choice for flexibility for Australians to manage their retirement savings. The government continues to support this change and will seek progress on that at a later time. I commend the bills to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The question is the bill now be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 90 20:49 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. By leave, I move government amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, together: (1) Clause 2, pages 2 to 4 (table items 2 to 8), omit the table items. (2) Schedule 1, page 6 (line 1) to page 11 (line 10), omit the Schedule. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 90 20:50 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Excise Tariff Amendment (Supporting Craft Brewers) Bill 2019 91

Excise Tariff Amendment (Supporting Craft Brewers) Bill 2019

Second Reading 91 Third Reading 91 20:52 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. House adjourned at 20:52 NOTICES 91 NOTICES QUESTIONS IN WRITING 92 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Ms Keay 262273 asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 18 October 2018: In respect of the Government's commitment during the by-election for the electoral division of Braddon to provide $134,000 to the Waratah Wynyard Council and $60,000 to the Burnie City Council from the Safer Communities Fund for closed circuit television cameras, will this be honoured; if not, why not; if so, (a) what discussions did the Government hold with either the Waratah Wynyard or Burnie City councils prior to this announcement, (b) are these councils required to formally apply to receive these grants, (c) what other funding options do these councils have should their applications be unsuccessful, and (d) when will the funding be paid should their applications be successful. Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: The Government had discussions with the Waratah-Wynyard Council and the Burnie City Council prior to announcements on 16 July 2018. Both councils have applied for funding under round three of the Safer Communities Fund, as is appropriate to ensure the proposals represent value for money. Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 25 October 2018: (1) Why is there no ban on the domestic trade of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn in Australia?(2) What measures is the Government implementing to ensure trade in illegally imported elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn is not occurring within Australia?(3) How is the Government actively working with the international community to combat the poaching crisis and the trafficking of wildlife, specifically elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn? Ms Price 249308 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Parliament Joint Committee on Law Enforcement finalised its report on domestic trade in elephant ivory and rhino horn in Australia in September 2018. The report recommended that governments implement a national domestic trade ban on elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn. The Australian Government can not, on its own, implement a complete ban on the domestic trade in ivory and rhino horn. In December 2018, I asked the states and territories to consider their existing regulations and options for implementing such a ban. The Government is carefully considering its response to the Committee's report, and will use information from states and territories to inform our response. (2) Australia's laws for the import of elephant ivory and rhino horn are stricter than international requirements, as required under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The Department of the Environment and Energy and the Australian Border Force work together to enforce Australia's international wildlife trade laws. Penalties for illegal imports of elephant ivory and rhino horn can be significant. Possessing illegally imported ivory or rhino horn is an offence under national environment law and can be penalised with fines up to $210,000 for an individual and up to 10 years imprisonment. The Australian Government works with other countries' CITES Management Authorities that allow the export of elephant ivory to Australia, to improve their awareness of Australia's strict requirements. We also work with auction houses to encourage documentation demonstrating the legal origin of ivory and rhino horn offered for sale within Australia. (3) The Australian Government has successfully worked through forums such as CITES, the United Nations General Assembly and the G20 with international law enforcement agencies, such as Interpol, to facilitate the international movement of wildlife forensic samples, increase penalties for wildlife crime and target corruption and money laundering associated with wildlife trafficking. We will continue to support measures that offer conservation benefits to elephants and rhinos. Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Human Services and Digital Transformation, in writing, on 27 November 2018: (1) What is the current average wait time for a successful Disability Support Pension (DSP) application.(2) How many DSP applications were (a) received, and (b) successful, between (i) 1 November 2013 and 31 October 2014, (ii) 1 November 2014 and 31 October 2015, (iii) 1 November 2015 and 31 October 2016, and (iv) 1 November 2017 and 31 October 2018.(3) How many of the above applications were submitted by people who identify as Indigenous or Torres Strait Islander, and how many of these were successful. Mr Keenan E0J The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) For the period 1 July 2018 to 30 November 2018, the median time to process granted Disability Support Pension Claims is 37 days* *Median days to process claims uses the same rules applied to Portfolio Budget Statement results. (2) (3) Refer to (2). Please note the following advice when seeking to interpret the data in (2): Claims Received is not the same as Claims Finalised , accordingly, the difference between Claims Received and Claims Granted may not equal Claims Rejected. The difference would also include unfinalised claims, and claims that did not progress, for example, withdrawn by the customer. Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 29 November 2018: (1) Will the Government be offering asylum to Asia Bibi?(2) Will the Government be offering asylum to Asia Bibi's family? Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: The Australian Government is aware of Ms Asia Bibi's situation. However, it would not be beneficial to Ms Bibi, or her family, for me to provide further comment about her particular situation at this time. Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and the Public Service, in writing, on 12 February 2019 : (1)    How does the indexation methodology for Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) and Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS) defined benefit pensions differ from the indexation methodology for the Age Pension.(2)    Why are the indexation methodologies different, and does it relate to the substantive purpose of the different pensions.(3) Does the Government intend to align the indexation methodology of CSS and PSS with that of the Age Pension; if not, why not.(4) Has the Government investigated the cost of aligning the indexation methodologies; if so, what are the projected additional costs. Mr Frydenberg FKL The Minister for Finance and the Public Service has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) PSS and CSS indexed pensions are adjusted bi-annually by movements in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Age Pension payments are adjusted bi-annually by the greater of movements in the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index and the CPI. If the resulting Age Pension is lower than a prescribed benchmark against Male Total Average Weekly Earnings, it is adjusted to the level of the benchmark. (2) CSS and PSS pensions and the Age Pension serve fundamentally different purposes. CSS and PSS pensions represent part of the remuneration package provided for Commonwealth employment. The CSS and PSS provide access to a lifetime pension and compare very favourably to the 9.5 percent Superannuation Guarantee applicable to most Australian workers. In contrast, the Age Pension is a welfare safety net benefit payment available to all Australians who meet the eligibility requirements. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the indexation arrangements for the Age Pension takes account of the living cost index for recipients. (3) While sympathetic to the difficulties that some superannuants face living on a fixed income, the Government considers that the Commonwealth civilian defined benefit schemes compare favourably with superannuation arrangements in the general community. The Government therefore intends to maintain the current indexation arrangements for CSS and PSS pensions. The Commonwealth has made significant contributions to the Future Fund to fund the legacy entitlements arising from the Commonwealth's defined benefit schemes. These fiscally responsible steps mean that the Future Fund is expected to have sufficient assets by the late 2020s to cover the Government's superannuation liabilities. Any improvement to indexation would increase the Government's superannuation liabilities. (4) No financial modelling of the cost of changing the CSS and PSS indexation methodology has been undertaken by the Government. Mr Gorman 74519 asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development in writing, on 19 February 2019: In respect of his letter to Cr Renee McLennan, Mayor of the Town of Bassendean in the electoral division of Perth, on the funding allocated to the Town through the Roads to Recovery Program, (a) why was the Town's five year share of the Program cut by 42 per cent from its previous five year allocation, (b) what method was used to determine each council's share of this funding, and (c) which councils will receive the $384,572 which has been taken from the Town. Mr McCormack 219646 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The total amount of base funding for Roads to Recovery over the next funding period (2019-20 to 2023‑24) is $2.0 billion. Total funding for Roads to Recovery for the current funding period (2014-15 to 2018‑19) is $3.205 billion, consisting of: base funding of $1.75 billion ($350 million per annum); one-off double funding of $350 million in 2015-16 from the 2014-15 Infrastructure Growth Package; and an additional $1.105 billion over 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 from an increase in fuel excise. Base allocations have increased, as Roads to Recovery funding has increased from $350 million to $400 million a year from 2019-20. The Town of Bassendean's base allocation under Roads to Recovery for the period 2019-20 to 2023-14 has increased to $555,840 from $513,371. (b) The new Roads to Recovery allocations were determined on the basis of the recommendations of the Local Government Grants Commissions in each state and the Northern Territory for the roads component of the Financial Assistance Grants for 2018‑19. These were the latest recommendations available when the allocations were determined and this is the same methodology that has been used for previous Roads to Recovery programs. (c) No Roads to Recovery funding has been taken from the Town of Bassendean. Mr Gorman 74519 asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development in writing, on 19 February 2019: 1. What sum of the Roads to Recovery Program funding did the (a) City of Perth, (b) City of Vincent, (c) City of Bayswater, and (d) City of Stirling, receive in (i) 2014-15, (ii) 2015-16, (iii) 2016-17, (iv) 2017-18, and (v) 2018-19. 2. What sum of the Roads to Recovery Program funding will the (a) City of Perth, (b) City of Vincent, (c) City of Bayswater, and (d) City of Stirling, receive in (i) 2019-20, (ii) 2020-21, (iii) 2021-22, (iv) 2022-23, and (v) 2023-24. Mr McCormack 219646 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Roads to Recovery payments to these councils for 2014-15 to 2017-18 and the amount they are to receive in 2018-19 are: Note – the amount that each council is to receive in 2018-19 is the balance of their five-year allocation for this period. 2. Roads to Recovery funding allocated to these councils for the period 2019-20 to 2023‑24 on a pro‑rata basis is: Note – final payments in each financial year may differ as payments are made against actual progress on the projects chosen by each council.