2019-10-17 46 1 1 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 17 October 2019

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 9:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

BILLS 1 BILLS Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 1

Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2019

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:31 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 will amend the Native Title Act 1993 and the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006—known as the C(ATSI) Act—to better support the resolution of native title claims and agreement-making around the use of native title land and to promote the autonomy of native title groups to make decisions about their land and to resolve internal disputes. Developed through extensive consultation with key stakeholders, the bill will implement practical and pragmatic improvements to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the native title system. The bill will also build on the amendments made by the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Act 2017toprovide certainty around the status of important mining and exploration related native title agreements affected by the Full Federal Court of Australia's decision in the matter of McGlade v Native Title Registrar & Ors. Background It has now been over 25 years since the High Court of Australia's historic decision in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23 and the passage of the Native Title Act 1993. The native title system has entered a period of maturity, with most legal issues relating to determination of native title claims settled and native title agreement-making now a recognised and orthodox part of 'doing business on land' in Australia. Through the collective efforts of all parties in the native title system, significant progress has been made in resolving claims for the recognition of native title. There are now more native title determinations than active claims on foot. As of June 2019, the National Native Title Tribunal's website reports that there have been 465 determinations of native title compared to 268 claim applications on foot. The status of native title has been determined over approximately 42.3 per cent of Australia's land mass, with another 22.3 per cent subject to a native title claim. As at June 2019, according to the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, known as ORIC, there are 202 registered native title bodies corporate—or RNTBCs—being the Indigenous corporations that hold native title once it has been determined, operating across Australia. While these statistics indicate that the native title legislative framework is broadly operating well, there are a number of challenges that this bill seeks to address. In particular, the bill seeks to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of native title claims resolution and agreement-making and to support the sustainable management of native title land post determination. The bill also supports other Australian government objectives around native title, including the aspiration to resolve all native title claims existing at June 2015 by 2025 and initiatives to activate the economic potential of land rights under the Our North, Our Future: White Paper on Developing Northern Australia. The bill will implement a number of recommendations from recent reviews of native title, including: the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2015 report on Connection to Country: Review of the Native Title Act 1993, the Council of Australian Government's 2015 Investigation into Land Administration and Use, and ORIC's 2017 Technical Review of the C(ATSI) Act, known as the ORIC review. The content of the bill is also informed by feedback from stakeholders, following consultation on an options paper for native title reform released from November 2017 to February 2018. The government received over 50 submissions on the options paper and conducted over 40 stakeholder meetings across the country. Exposure draft legislation, released for public comment on 29 October 2018, was carefully developed in consultation with stakeholders across the native title system. The draft legislation received a further 36 submissions from stakeholders. An expert technical advisory group convened by the government and comprised of nominees from the National Native Title Council, National Native Title Tribunal, Federal Court of Australia, government and industry has also provided valuable technical assistance throughout the process of developing this bill. Key objectives The key objectives of the bill are such that the bill will improve the native title system for all parties, including by: supporting the capacity of native title holders through greater flexibility in internal decision-making; streamlining claims resolution and agreement-making processes; allowing historical extinguishment to be disregarded over areas of national, state or territory parks with the agreement of the parties; increasing the transparency and accountability of particular native title corporations, known as prescribed bodies corporate or registered native title bodies corporate, to native title holders; and improving pathways for dispute resolution following a determination of native title. The bill will also as a matter of urgency confirm the validity of agreements made under section 31 of the Native Title Act in light of the Full Federal Court of Australia's decision in McGlade. Section 31 agreements are a particular kind of native title agreement which relate to the grant of mining and exploration rights over land which may be subject to native title and the compulsory acquisition of native title. While the government took decisive action to ensure the validity of Indigenous land use agreements through the amendments in 2017, there remains a significant risk that the issue raised by the McGladedecision might similarly affect section 31 agreements. The validity of section 31 agreements was not confirmed as part of the 2017 amendments because stakeholders wanted more time to consider this issue and its potential impact. Following the process of extensive consultation on this bill, there is widespread native title sector support for the validation of these agreements and the proposed validation mechanism in this bill. In particular, schedule 9 of the bill will seek to confirm the validity of section 31 agreements where not all members of the native title party (also known as the 'applicant') have entered into the agreement. McGlade held that it is necessary for all members of this group to enter into an agreement, even if a single member was unwilling or unable to sign the agreement (including because the person was deceased). Under the proposed amendments, section 31 agreements entered into prior to the commencement of this amending bill will be validated, provided that at least one member of each relevant native title party is a party to the agreement. These amendments will provide certainty to Indigenous and non-Indigenous parties who have already concluded these agreements, including by protecting any resulting benefits and interests agreed to by the parties. Measures in the b ill Supporting the capacity of native title holders through greater flexi bility around internal decision- making Under the Native Title Act, the applicant is the person or group of people authorised by a native title claim group to make and manage a claim on their behalf. The applicant can also enter into native title agreements on behalf of the group where authorised to do so. The process of authorisation recognises the communal character of traditional law and cu stom which grounds native title and ensures that claims are not lodged without the consent of the broader native title claim group. The amendments in s chedule 1 to the b ill will implement recommendations made by the Australian Law Ref orm Commission report and COAG i nvestigation to give native title holders the option of greater flexibility around setting their internal decision-making processes to support ro bust decision-making structures and to ensure the applicant is accountable to the broader claim group. The amendments will allow the claim group to impose conditions on the authority of the applicant, if they wish to, which might include, for example, a condition to require the applicant to get approval from the claim group before agreeing to a consent determination or discontinuing a claim. This will allow the claim group to retain control ove r the management of their claim and increase the applicant ' s accountability as the group ' s appointed representative. The amendments will allow a majority of the applicant to make decisions in relation to the management of a native title claim or entering into native title agreements, rather than requiring all members of the applicant to act together, unless the claim group requires unanimity. These amendments extend the changes to the process es for entering into Indigenous land use agreements made by the 2017 amendments to all things the applicant can do under the Native Title Act, consistent with recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission's report. Finally, the amendments will make it simpler for the claim group to replace individual members of the applicant if the member becomes too ill to perform their duties, or has pas sed away, including through pre- agreed succession-planning arrangements. This is intended to both streamline the process of replacing members of the applicant, while also supporting native title claim groups to develop their own governance structures early on in the life of a native title claim. Streamlining claims resolution and agreement-making processes As more native title claims are determined, the focus of the system will shift to the ways in which native title holders can make agreements with other parties about the use of land and waters subject to native title. The efficient and effective operation of the Native Title Act's agreement-making processes is also critical to native title claimants and holders obtaining economic benefit from native title. The amendments in schedules 2 and 4 to the bill will implement a number of technical recommendations by the COAG investigation to improve the claims resolution and agreement-making processes under the act. This includes amendments to expand the scope of the agreement-making and claims resolution provisions for native title corporations. 'Body corporate Indigenous land use agreements' will now be able to include areas where native title has not been recognised that are within a larger determination of native title—until now, these circumstances have required parties to use an 'area Indigenous land use agreement', which can be more costly and time-consuming for all parties to enter into. Enabling a wider and more flexible use of 'body corporate Indigenous land use agreements' will accordingly reduce transaction costs and time frames for all parties. The circumstances under which a native title corporation can bring a claim for compensation for extinguishment of native title will also be expanded. This will provide native title compensation claim groups with a wider range of options for bringing those proceedings. Schedules 5 and 6 of the bill will make further minor procedural amendments to clarify processes around claims resolution, including around the power of the Federal Court to make consent determinations, as well as objections to activities which affect native title, also known as 'future acts'. Schedule 6 also includes an amendment to require the Native Title Registrar to keep a public record of section 31 agreements. This measure responds to stakeholder feedback received through consultation on the bill for there to be greater transparency around the making of these agreements. Currently, parties to a section 31 agreement are required to give a copy of the agreement to the National Native Title Tribunal, but the tribunal has no power to do anything with it. This measure would require the registrar to keep a public record with certain details about section 31 agreements—including who the parties are and what area the agreement covers—but an agreement does not need to appear on the record for it have legally binding effect. The content of section 31 agreements themselves will also remain confidential, respecting the commercial-in-confidence nature of such agreements. Disregarding historical extinguishment of areas of national, state or territory parks Schedule 3 to the bill will amend the Native Title Act to enable parties to agree to disregard the historical extinguishment of native title over an area that has been set aside or vested to preserve the natural environment, such as areas of national, state and territory parks. The proposed measure will only operate by agreement between the parties and will ensure that any existing third-party interests are appropriately recognised. The purpose of this amendment is simply to provide parties with more flexibility to disregard historical extinguishment and will allow for more opportunities for native title to be recognised over areas where important connection to country exists for traditional owners. Increasing the transparency and accountability of prescribed bodies corpor ate to the native title holders Native title corporations manage native title rights on behalf of the native title holders. This role is an important one for the community and for land management generally. Unlike other corporations, these bodies have obligations to the native title holders, who may or may not be members of the corporation. The amendments in schedule 8 to the bill include measures to improve the transparency, accountability and governance around the decisions that native title corporations make, with a particular focus on membership. The amendments will remove the discretion of directors to refuse membership where an applicant meets the eligibility requirements and has applied for membership in the required manner and will require native title corporations to align their membership criteria with the native title determination. The reforms also limit the grounds for cancelling membership to those provided for under the C(ATSI) Act. These measures will assist to prevent the corporations from arbitrarily acting to exclude native title holders from membership and to ensure that all native title holders may be represented in a corporation, directly or indirectly. Improving pathways for dispute resolution following a determination of native title According to statistics held by ORIC, native title corporations are subject to a relatively large number of disputes about how a corporation is managing the native title. This is perhaps not surprising, given the early stage of development of many of the corporations and the responsibilities of PBCs under both Australian and traditional law. Native title disputes, in particular between native title corporations and native title holders, impact on corporation governance and the ability of the corporations to fulfil their obligations. Disputes also impact on the ability of native title holders to exercise their native title rights. This package of reforms aims to improve the way disputes are handled in future. The amendments in schedule 8 to the bill require native title corporations to include a process in their rule books for resolving disputes with native title holders. Currently rule books are only required to include a dispute resolution clause relating to the internal operation of the corporation. This reform ensures corporations have procedures to address disputes with native title holders, whether or not they are members of the corporation, and aims to resolve disputes early and internally before the corporation needs to obtain costly legal advice or the disputes escalate. The process would be designed by the corporation to meet their needs and circumstances. The amendments clarify that the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations may place a native title corporation under special administration where it has seriously or repeatedly failed to comply with its obligations under native title legislation. Examples of this conduct may include failing to consult with and obtain the consent of native title holders for certain decisions, or failing to act in accordance with the directions of native title holders where there is a significant consequence for native title holders. To further support dispute resolution pathways, the bill introduces a new requirement that certain matters arising under the C(ATSI) Act that relate to native title corporations must be instituted in the Federal Court. This reform recognises the specialist expertise of the Federal Court to resolve disputes relating to native title. In addition, schedule 7 to the bill will provide the National Native Title Tribunal with a new function to provide direct assistance to native title corporations and native title holders to promote agreement about native title related issues. Under the current law, the tribunal can only provide assistance in relation to intra-Indigenous disputes when invited by a native title representative body or service provider to do so. The function is designed to provide the tribunal with flexibility in how it is performed but is broad enough to allow the tribunal to provide assistance to native title corporations and holders around the establishment of governance processes and the mediation of disputes and to facilitate collaboration between native title corporations. Conclusion Stakeholders across the native title system agree that, despite significant progress, there is scope for reforming the native title system to improve the recognition and management of native title rights and traditional lands. These amendments demonstrate the Australian g overnment ' s commitment to ensuring that the native title system meets the current needs of all native title stakeholders. Taken together, these amendments will improve the native title system substantially for all parties, promoting effective native title claims resolution and agreement- making and the manag ement of native title land post- determination. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 4

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019

First Reading 4 Second Reading 4 09:48 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Morrison government is strongly committed to combating transnational, serious and organised crime. Organised criminal groups systematically target the health, prosperity and safety of Australians, and in the process erode public trust in institutions. The cost to Australia's economy alone is estimated to be up to $47 billion each year. The realisation of profit is the primary motivation underlying transnational, serious and organised crime. These groups mercilessly pursue profit, having no regard to the harms caused. As a result of this, money laundering has become one of the key enablers of the criminal business model, allowing the profits of crime to be realised, concealed and reinvested in further criminal activity or used to fund lavish lifestyles. Criminal and terrorist threats are not static. Methods to launder dirty money and finance terrorism—by their very nature—evolve to exploit opportunities, with criminals and terrorists constantly working to find new ways to circumvent controls and avoid detection. Accordingly, our legal and policy settings must also continue to evolve to ensure law enforcement agencies can effectively combat and disrupt money laundering, terrorism financing and other serious crimes. The government is committed to responding to these evolving threats and taking every step necessary to keep Australians safe. On 7 and 8 November this year, Australia will host a global ministerial conference on combating terrorist financing. The No Money for Terror conference provides an opportunity for Australia to continue to progress the important international dialogue on global efforts to deprive terrorist groups of funding. The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, which I introduce today, is another example of our commitment to dismantling the criminal business model. The bill is the next phase of the government's reforms to bolster our anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism financing, or AML/CTF, regime, to prevent criminals from enjoying the profits of their illegal activities, and to stop funds falling into the hands of terrorists. This regime is centred on hardening the financial sector against these threats. The bill will also improve Australia's compliance with the international standards for combating money laundering and terrorism financing set by the Financial Action Task Force. I will now outline the specific amendments contained in the bill. The first reform is to customer due diligence requirements. A key pillar of the AML/CTF regime is the requirement for regulated businesses to identify their customers and verify their identity. This enables regulated businesses to identify, and efficiently manage, any money laundering or terrorism financing risks posed by customers and the services provided. The bill will broaden the circumstances in which the approximately 14,000 regulated businesses may enter into an arrangement with another regulated entity to rely on checks already conducted. These amendments are expected to reduce the cost of customer verification for businesses, delivering a substantial saving of up to $3.1 billion over 10 years. This amendment furthers the government's agenda of reducing unnecessary regulatory burden and improving the customer experience. The bill also amends correspondent banking obligations. Correspondent banking relationships are essential in the global payment system and vital to international trade and the global economy as a whole. They allow one bank to provide services on behalf of another, while relying on the other bank to carry out the verification procedures such as identifying the customer, determining the real owners, and monitoring such transactions for risks. However, these banking relationships can pose significant money laundering and terrorism financing risks. This is particularly true with cross-border correspondent banking relationships. The bill will impose more stringent obligations on Australian banks by requiring them to conduct appropriate due diligence on correspondent banking relationships to ensure that its correspondent banks are not doing business with shell banks and have robust AML/CTF systems and controls. This represents international best practice. Third, this bill reforms cross-border reporting requirements. The movement of cash and other valuable items across borders is a common money laundering and terrorism financing method. Criminals move cash and valuables across borders to launder funds, pay for illicit goods, use illicit funds to purchase assets, and to hide proceeds of crime from authorities. Currently, travellers into and out of Australia must declare all cross-border movements of physical currency of $10,000 or more. The bill expands this requirement so that, in addition to physical currency, bearer negotiable instruments, such as travellers cheques, must also be declared at the border where the combined amount is $10,000 or more. The bill also increases the penalties for failing to comply with cross-border declaration requirements to further deter bulk cash smuggling. These changes will bring Australia's regime into alignment with other comparable regimes across the world. The bill also modernises secrecy and access provisions. In the global fight against organised crime and terrorism, it is crucial that our national security, law enforcement and revenue protection agencies can efficiently and effectively access and use valuable financial intelligence in performing their functions. AUSTRAC information often plays a crucial role in the work of these agencies. For example, in the 2017-18 financial year, AUSTRAC data contributed to: $26.67 million in savings from increased detection of welfare fraud; $208.8 million in income tax assessments; $207.4 million recovered in tax liabilities; and the seizure of 1.2 tonnes of methamphetamine with an estimated street value of over $1 billion. The bill will make important changes to the 'secrecy and access' provisions in the AML/CTF Act, which establish a framework for the access, disclosure and use of financial information held by AUSTRAC. The proposed reforms will put in place a simplified and streamlined regime to ensure the secrecy obligations are more clearly and readily understood, and the potential for inconsistency and ambiguity between provisions is minimised. These changes will enhance the government's ability to deepen collaborative approaches to investigating money laundering, terrorism financing and other serious crime. These reforms will also ensure the regime for sharing AUSTRAC information keeps pace with new, more collaborative approaches to investigating these crimes, for example, in partnership with the private sector and through multi-agency taskforces. The reforms in the bill are accompanied by appropriate safeguards and protections around the handling of sensitive information held by AUSTRAC. This includes a new power to set conditions on the access, disclosure and use of AUSTRAC information to reflect particular sensitivities of the information. Criminal enterprises are not confined by national borders and exploit differences between jurisdictions to prevent detection. Recognising this, the bill seeks to better equip reporting entities operating in a globalised environment to manage their exposure to transnational crime risks. It does this by enabling them to share information about money-laundering and terrorism-financing risks in relation to customers with appropriately regulated foreign members of a corporate group and designated business group. This will enable businesses to more effectively manage money-laundering and terrorism-financing risks within their business structure and across jurisdictions in relation to risks posed by shared customers. To ensure that the privacy of customers is protected, the bill also imposes additional safeguards that ensure the confidentiality of sensitive information is maintained and that the information will only be used for the purpose for which it is provided. The government is also seeking to strengthen money-laundering offences in the Criminal Code. It is well known that police use undercover operations to investigate serious offending, such as large-scale money-laundering syndicates. Currently, where police supply cash to a money-laundering syndicate as part of an authorised undercover operation, the would-be money launderers cannot be prosecuted because, technically, the money laundered is not the proceeds of crime, despite what the would-be money launderer may have believed. This technicality should not be the reason why criminals escape prosecution. The bill rectifies this anomaly through changes to the Criminal Code to clarify that cash used in undercover operations is considered 'proceeds of crime' for the purpose of Commonwealth money-laundering offences. The final measure in the bill amends the Australian Federal Police Act to make it an offence for a person to dishonestly represent that a police award has been conferred on them. It's important to recognise and celebrate the bravery and heroism of police officers who put their lives on the line every single day. The introduction of this offence will preserve the significant honour associated with receiving a police award and recognise the outstanding contribution these individuals make to their country. We must not let this contribution be devalued by imposters. I urge members to support the passage of this important legislation, which will further harden our financial sector against money laundering and terrorism financing and empower our law enforcement agencies to better detect it and prosecute those responsible. Further, this bill represents an important next step in the Morrison government's commitment to reducing the burden of red tape on our economy. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Assistance and Access Amendments Review) Bill 2019 7

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Assistance and Access Amendments Review) Bill 2019

First Reading 7 Second Reading 7 09:59 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (the PJCIS) and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (the INSLM) have important functions in oversight of Australia's national security and counterterrorism legislation. This bill ensures that both the PJCIS and the INSLM have adequate time to complete their reviews of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018. In its second review of the assistance and access act, the committee recommended that the deadline for its third review be extended to June 2020. The chair of the committee subsequently requested a further extension to 30 September 2020 to allow the committee to consider any recommendations by the monitor, who has asked the committee for an extension until June 2020 to complete his own review of the legislation. The government supported this recommendation and this request, and this bill implements that change. The government supported the recommendation due to the importance of ensuring a complete and comprehensive examination of the assistance and access act by both the committee and the monitor, in the interests of protecting the security and the rights of all Australians. Given the importance of the assistance and access act in ensuring the safety and security of our community, the government accepts the PJCIS and INSLM request for more time to review the act as they have requested. Extending the review dates will allow the committee sufficient time to consider the findings of the monitor and to undertake comprehensive consultations with industry and the public. By way of conclusion, I urge the timely passage of this bill. I also acknowledge and appreciate the extensive and continuing work of the PJCIS and INSLM in reviewing this legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019 7

Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019

First Reading 7 Second Reading 7 10:02 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I move: That this bill be now read a second time. On behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, I present the Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019. Our farmers are key to achieving our ambition of a $100 billion agricultural industry by 2030. Australia has a world-class agricultural industry. But increases in the quality and quantity of our agricultural production largely depend on good seasonal conditions in our rural areas. There are farmers and their communities that are doing it tough right now. By keeping the economy strong, the government can support our agricultural industries to combat, recover from and prepare for drought. There are times, like now, when persistent widespread drought conditions impact on primary production and the livelihoods of our farmers and their families. These are challenging times for many in the bush. Supporting farmers is the Australian government's most urgent priority. This government recognises that farming is a long game. Support in times of hardship is part of what is needed to help farmers and their communities through these difficult times. That's why the Farm Household Allowance (FHA) was created—with strong bipartisan support. Multiple reviews recommended creating a payment that would respond to individual need. When a farmer can't pay their creditors and suppliers, it's academic about the cause of the cash-flow issues. What matters is they can't put food on their own table. That's ironic, because they are putting food on everyone else's table and clothes on their back. Since the introduction of the FHA in 2014, over $365 million in fortnightly payments have been made to almost 12,700 farmers and their partners. FHA is not a drought measure. It helps farmers facing financial hardship, which does not need to be caused by drought conditions. However, many of the farmers who access FHA do so because of drought. The program gives income support to eligible farmers and their families to pay for basic household necessities while they make decisions about the future of their farm business and take action to improve their circumstances. It also provides thousands of dollars to help with professional financial assessment of the farm business and for activities and services that maximise the chance of recipients better managing their business. During its operation, the Australian government has made a number of changes to ensure that allowances meet the needs of Australian farming families. The Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019 is another vital step in the coalition's commitment to supporting farmers in challenging climatic conditions. The bill aligns with the government's three-point drought plan: immediate action for farmers, support for the wider communities affected, and longer-term resilience and planning. Our plan will continue to help farmers to get through their immediate problems and to prepare for the future. This bill is the first piece of legislation to support implementation of the recommendations by the review Rebuilding the FHA: a better way forward for supporting farmers in financial hardship. The new arrangements outlined in this bill will allow more people to be able to claim FHA. The bill will allow farm business losses of up to $100,000 to be deducted from their other income. This means that the true net position of the farm business will form the basis of establishing their need. The bottom line is that through this amendment we will be able to reach more famers in need. This bill also means that, for the first time, farmers generating income from agistment can offset those gains against either the farm loss or the loss of another related business. This recognises that many farms have multiple arms to their operation. They are pretty clever at making money when there's money to be made. In addition to running the farm business they often have contracting businesses, like harvesting or spraying, or earn money by value-adding to their produce. The bill will also enable farmers and their partners to receive FHA for four in every 10 years. This acknowledges that farmers may experience more than one period of hardship in their lifetime, often due to cyclical and unpredictable impacts to agricultural production in Australia. These changes will better reflect the real financial position of our farmers. As you'd expect, we are counting the first 10 years from 1 July 2014, when FHA was launched. The first 10-year anniversary falls due on 1 July 2024. After that time, farmers and their partners who face tough times again can have the breathing space to address the drivers of business shock and make the big decisions about their future. Finally, in recognition of the extending severe drought conditions, this bill provides for a relief payment for those farmers who have or will exhaust their four years of payment up until 30 June 2020. Each couple that has come to the end of their four-year payment period will be given a drought relief payment of $13,000 and for singles this drought relief payment will be $7,500. That's the equivalent of six months FHA payment. Some FHA recipients have done everything they can to respond to their circumstances. Many have continued to face severe drought conditions. Nothing any of us can do will make it rain but we can ease this transition off payment. This creates more space for those people to take the time they need to decide what their long-term future holds. FHA is about taking stock. Farmers are exposed to lots of risk that they can't control. Good planning is essential to get through difficult times. If they continue farming and face another tough period, they can access FHA again from 1 July 2024. The FHA program has always been designed to help farmers assess their position, to look at succession or decide to sell-up. The program has a suite of measures designed to assist them look at these options. This includes up to $1,500 for a professional financial assessment of the business. The person chooses who does that assessment—their own trusted adviser. This comprehensive look at the farmer's bottom line informs their approach to maximising the opportunity of being on payment. But we don't leave it there. We don't pay for the road map and leave them to it—hoping they'll make decisions that are right for them. We make up to $4,000 available to each recipient to pay for advice and training—either on or off farm. Recently we've approved people undertaking courses to maximise farm production, improved financial administration, additional training for occupational therapy, and food safety handling and assessment. All this is supported by one-on-one case support from the Department of Human Services and also agribusiness expertise from the Rural Financial Counselling Service. There's more that we are doing. The government has already announced its plan for a radical simplification to make the FHA easier for farmers to access payments and better support their families. The measures in this bill are just the first instalment of the changes required to simplify the FHA. We are also improving claim procedures for farmers and their partners, cutting unnecessary red tape. Farmers and their partners will soon be able to apply for FHA using just one application. Removing duplication in the application process will mean more time for farmers and their partners to manage their farm and to look after livestock. Supporting drought affected communities remains the government's most urgent priority. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Enhancing Australia's Anti-Doping Capability) Bill 2019 9

Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Enhancing Australia's Anti-Doping Capability) Bill 2019

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 10:09 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Australian government supports a fair, safe and healthy environment for all athletes and is committed to clean sport. Sport delivers for Australians: it provides extensive benefits from improved health through physical endeavour to the pursuit of athletic excellence and the values it teaches and encourages in every member of our Australian community. However, sport and all it offers our community when it is clean, fair and safe is under threat. The threat of modern doping is significant, with successive national and international doping scandals over recent years undermining public confidence in the legitimacy of the sporting contest. Not only is doping a serious risk to an athlete's health and wellbeing, at its foundation, it debases all that is good about sport. International cooperation and coordination of efforts in the fight against doping continue to improve. But even as the antidoping effort becomes more sophisticated, making it harder for intentional dopers 'to get away with it', doping continues. As part of the 2018 Review of Australia's Sports Integrity Arrangementsthe expert panel, chaired by the Hon. James Wood AO QC, found that increasingly sophisticated doping is harder to detect by urine and blood sample analysis alone, with intelligence and investigations now indispensable in the detection of doping incidents and programs. Accordingly, the Wood review determined a detection program involving both sample analysis and intelligence led investigations is required for the enforcement of antidoping rules, as a foundation for preventive measures and for the pursuit of non-analytical doping cases. In the absence of significant reform and an additional funding base, including government intervention to resolve longstanding issues regarding the costs and sustainability of the sample analysis system, the Wood review found that Australia's antidoping program will be unable to address current and foreseeable future doping challenges effectively. The Wood review also found the current Australian antidoping legislative framework requires reform to enable national antidoping capability to effectively address modern doping threats. The government heard those warnings, and is delivering. This is why we introduced legislation into the previous parliament to amend the ASADA Act, which lapsed due to the recent federal election. Since then we have taken the opportunity to undertake further consultation on, and refinement of, the bill being introduced today. This bill is the first step in ensuring that Australia's antidoping legislative framework is robust, efficient and responsive to the contemporary threat environment. The amendments to the ASADA Act will: streamline the administrative phase of the statutory antidoping rule violation process through removal of unnecessary and duplicative processes; facilitate better information sharing between ASADA and national sporting organisations through enhancing statutory protections for the information provided to the sport by ASADA; strengthen ASADA's disclosure notice regime and ensuring appropriate sanctions for noncompliance; and extend statutory protection against civil actions to cover national sporting organisations in their exercise of ADRV functions. To the extent these reforms are currently directed to the functions of ASADA, under the government's Safeguarding the Integrity of Sportpolicy, such functions will be performed by the new single national sports integrity body being established by the government, Sport Integrity Australia, from 1 July 2020. Australia is a proud sporting nation. We value, and we are proud of sport that is clean, fair and safe. This government will ensure that this will remain the case. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Sport Integrity Australia) Bill 2019 10

Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Sport Integrity Australia) Bill 2019

First Reading 10 Second Reading 10 10:14 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Sport is an important part of Australian culture. It has shaped the Australian national identity through events such as the AFL grand final, the Ashes, the State of Origin, the Sydney to Hobart, and the Australian Open. Australians have come to expect the sports they watch and participate in are fair and honest. And while Australia has always taken a strong stance against cheating and misconduct in sport, there is more that should be done to prepare for future sports integrity threats and challenges. It is essential the millions of Australians who participate in sport at every level, from grassroots to the elite, have full confidence their sports are better protected from external threats such as doping, drug use, match fixing and criminal exploitation of athletes and events. Australians should be confident they can enjoy sports environments free of abuse, discrimination and harassment. The nature of sports corruption is evolving at an unprecedented rate due to the immense commercialisation of sport and sporting organisations, and accelerating technological advancement. Sports integrity matters are now beyond the control of any single stakeholder. They are complex, globalised and connected, forming a complicated threat matrix exposing vulnerabilities that require a robust and nationally coordinated response across sports, governments, regulators, the wagering industry, law enforcement and other stakeholders. In August 2017, the government commissioned the Review of Australia's Sports Integrity Arrangements, as part of the government's ongoing development of the national sports plan—Sport 2030. The review panel, chaired by the Hon. James Wood AO QC, delivered the Report of the review of Australia's sports integrity arrangements, known as theWood review, in early 2018. The Wood review warns that 'without the presence of a comprehensive, effective and nationally coordinated response capability, the hard-earned reputation of sport in this country risks being tarnished' and that, beyond the immediate impact of corrupt conduct of the kind identified, a public loss of confidence in the sporting contest has direct consequences for the health, economic, social and cultural benefits that sport generates and undermines significant investment in sport. The Wood review also identifies a critical leadership role for the Commonwealth government by supporting the integrity efforts of sporting organisations in the evolving threat environment, particularly those sports with fewer resources. To achieve this outcome, the centrepiece of the Wood review recommendations is the formation of a new agency—a single coordinating body to address sports integrity matters at a national level and ensure Australia is positioned to effectively respond to escalating integrity risks. This is why we introduced legislation into the previous parliament to establish a new body called Sport Integrity Australia. Although that bill lapsed due to the recent federal election, the government remains committed to the establishment of Sport Integrity Australia and convinced in the benefits it will provide to Australian sport. Currently in Australia, sports integrity functions are shared between the National Integrity of Sport Unit within the Department of Health, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and Sport Australia. As a result, stakeholders are often required to interact with multiple agencies on matters across the sports integrity spectrum, creating undue regulatory burden. Initially, Sport Integrity Australia will be established to unite the nationally focused sport integrity functions of the National Integrity of Sport Unit, ASADA and Sport Australia, establishing a single point of coordination for all sport integrity matters and a single point of reference for all stakeholders, working in close cooperation with the Sports Betting Integrity Unit (a joint initiative of the National Integrity of Sport Unit and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission) and states and territories, and across the sports sector. Sport Integrity Australia will seek to prevent and address threats to sports integrity. The agency will coordinate a national approach to these matters with a view to achieving: fair and honest sporting performances and outcomes; promoting positive conduct by athletes, administrators, officials, and other stakeholders on and off the sporting arena; achieving a safe, fair and inclusive sporting environment at all levels; and enhancing the reputation and standing of sporting contests and of sport overall. Sport Integrity Australia's focus will be on policy and program delivery, education and outreach, and antidoping regulation including monitoring and intelligence. The agency will stand ready to assist sporting organisations to ensure that the skills and capabilities in the sporting sector exist to identify and prevent threats to the integrity of sport. Through its role as a single point of contact for all sports integrity matters, Sport Integrity Australia will be ideally positioned to receive, handle and share information as appropriate to prevent and address threats to the integrity of sport. The government remains committed to developing and implementing additional and enhanced capabilities recommended by the Wood review, including: enhanced anti-match-fixing intelligence capabilities; a new regulatory scheme referred to in the Wood review as the Australian Sports Wagering Scheme; and a protected disclosure (whistleblower) framework for sport. This will be implemented in stage 2 as outlined in the government response to the Wood review. However, the early establishment of Sport Integrity Australia will improve the coordination of Australia's sports integrity response and reduce the regulatory burden on sport, athletes and others who are currently required to interact with multiple agencies across the spectrum of sports integrity issues. This government is intent on protecting the integrity of the sports that make up this great sporting nation, the sports Australians enjoy and have come to expect as being safe, fair and inclusive—sports that deserve to be enjoyed by all, for generations to come. Debate adjourned. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019 12

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019

Second Reading 12 10:20 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP I remind the House that 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 before the chair is that the amendment be agreed to. 10:21 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan This government is led by a slick salesman. This government wants us to believe that the only thing needed to treat homelessness is to put a positive spin on it and the only way to deal with the drought is to pray for rain, and it wants us to believe that drug testing social security recipients is about getting people out of drug addiction. Well, the social services minister put an end to that and revealed their real motivations when she said that increasing the rate of Newstart would mean that money goes to drug dealers. That's their real motivation around this. It's not about getting people out of addiction. It's not about helping people into work. It is about demonising those who fall on hard times and end up relying on our social security safety net. I'm probably very unusual in this House for a number of reasons, I would say. One of those reasons is that I'm probably one of the very few members who have actually had to live on Newstart and rely on the social security safety net. Having fled a violent marriage at a very young age with a three-year-old and a one-year-old, I found myself at the Centrelink offices asking for some help because I had no other means of feeding my children and keeping a roof over their heads. I know what it's like. I've felt the sting of humiliation. When people who have been through the same thing come into my office—people who are over the age of 55 and have been retrenched and cannot find another job; women who have fled violent relationships and have nothing; older women; older men; young women; young men; people of all ages who come into my office because they have found themselves on hard times; hardworking, decent, honest Australians who find themselves on hard times and who rely on a social security safety net that this country has prided itself on for so many years—I see in their eyes what I felt all those years ago when I had to walk into that Centrelink office and ask for help myself. This legislation, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019, does not discriminate. It does not discriminate between those who are on drugs, who have a drug addiction or habit, and that single mother who has made the difficult decision to leave a violent husband or partner and walk into that Centrelink office. It doesn't discriminate for that older woman at the age of 60 who's worked for a company for 30 years and then is retrenched who has no other means of living, no other means of putting food on the table for herself or of keeping a roof over her head. It does not discriminate. Everyone will be caught by this. It doesn't matter if that person is meeting all the requirements, it doesn't matter if they don't have any addiction issues and it doesn't matter if they have never used drugs in their life. The medical experts have pointed out that this simply won't work, because here's the thing: drug addiction is a health issue and it should be treated as a health issue. That's how you get people out of drug addiction, not by randomly testing people and then punishing them if they do have that medical issue. If the government were serious about drug addiction, as they have tried to sell this as, then they'd be investing more money in rehabilitation, not demonising people on social security. Between 200,000 and 500,000 Australians a year can't access the addiction services they need because those services are underfunded and unavailable. Last term, I was on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement and, this term, I'm the deputy chair of that committee. In the last parliament, we undertook an inquiry into the use of methamphetamine or 'ice'. That inquiry used new data released through new means and new surveys—the new household survey—as well as through waste water testing to show that Western Australia has double the national average use of ice. But here's the thing: that use of ice and methamphetamines in Western Australia was not in Mandurah where this proposal is supposed to start this drug-testing trial. It was not in Mandurah, so it can't be about capturing people or finding people who are drug addicted, as the government is trying to sell this. Recommendation 11 of that report, that is yet to be actioned by this government, also stated and made special mention of the lack of funding for rehabilitation services, particularly in Western Australia, and that recommendation said that the money that comes out of the federal funding to the National Ice Taskforce and the national ice strategy needs to be redistributed in such a way as to take account of new information and new data about the distribution and use of methamphetamine, particularly paying attention to the fact that Western Australia gets a lower amount of that federal funding because it is based on old data. So WA needs more funding for rehabilitation services, but the government is yet to action recommendation 11 of that report. Instead of following through on the reports that are done by a parliamentary committee on the use of methamphetamines, the government comes up with an unproven strategy to target welfare recipients under the guise of doing something about drug addiction. We know it's not about drug addiction. We know that this is just part of the government's continued protracted campaign to demonise people who find themselves in hard times and relying on our social security safety net. As I've said before, that includes everyone. That includes people like me who, those many, many years ago now—I admit, it was many years ago—find themselves in a position where they have to walk into that Centrelink office and ask for help. We know that this doesn't work. It's been tried overseas, it's been tried in New Zealand, it's been tried in the United States and it has proven to be a failure. The important point to be made here is that it's particularly proven to be a failure in the area of treating drug addiction. Once again, the slick salesman who leads this government wants us to believe that this is about helping people who are addicted to drugs. Well, that's rubbish. It is not about helping people who are addicted to drugs. You want to help people who are addicted to drugs? Listen to the medical experts. Listen to the health experts. Look at the evidence from other countries where this has been tried and has failed, particularly in that regard. But do not try to dupe the Australian people and pretend that this is about compassion for people who are addicted to drugs. Do not try and do that, because the Australian people see through it. Labor are opposing this. We cannot let this pass. We cannot let pass the indiscriminate drug-testing of people, many of whom, as I said before, find themselves fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. We cannot let this government continue to demonise people who are on social security while refusing to raise Newstart, arguing that any raising of Newstart is going to result in more money for drug dealers. I stand here before the House as somebody who has been through this, as somebody who has felt that sting of humiliation. I stand here to speak up for every man, for every woman and for every person out there who right now finds themselves in that position and to say to them: I understand; I know how you feel; and I will, for as long as I'm in this place, speak up for you and continue to oppose the demonisation of you and of anyone else who finds themselves in your position. 10:31 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I also wish to make a contribution to this debate and, at the outset, I indicate that Labor is opposed to the proposition contained in this Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019. When we talk about public policy, there are two aspects that affect it. Either a government comes with a mandate or, alternatively, it is evidence based. In considering this particular bill, neither is applicable—and I'll come back to that point. I think we need to be clear that this bill, as the previous speaker, the member for Cowan, just indicated, seeks to indiscriminately and ineffectively apply drug testing to people unfortunate enough to be on social welfare. We've had a significant debate running, maybe not across the chamber but certainly out there in our respective electorates, about the inadequacies of Newstart currently. My electorate, probably more than most, has been affected by a decline of light manufacturing, and, regrettably, the people who are becoming more reliant on Newstart in my electorate are people aged 55-plus, who are not likely to get another job. They are now relying on Newstart. Under this bill, they are the sorts of people who, it could be contemplated, would be regularly and indiscriminately subject to drug testing. It just beggars belief that this is what the government thinks is progress in our community. This is the third time that a bill of this nature has been introduced into the parliament. Labor opposed it on the last two occasions, and we won't miss this opportunity to oppose it. The bill is not well founded and it certainly doesn't take on board the evidence out there. It certainly doesn't have any support from the various stakeholders, whether it be from the mental health or social welfare quarters. It's fair to note that the likes of Dr Katie Seear, Professor Suzanne Fraser, Professor David Moore and Associate Professor kylie valentine, senior researchers with longstanding expertise in social policy issues relating to alcohol and other drug use, found the bill 'poorly conceived and counterproductive'.They go on to find: … a recent analysis of submissions to the Committees exploring the 2017 and 2018 bills … observed that 98% of submissions by organisations and individuals opposed the bills. The remaining submissions— those in support of the bill— were from the Department itself. So it gets back to what I said: when considering social policy, neither a mandate nor, alternatively, being able to develop from a social need was the case in this instance. What this bill does, in effect, is that it will require about 5,000 people on Newstart and youth allowance in the Canterbury Bankstown, Mildura and Logan areas to submit to random drug testing over a two-year period. If a person does not agree to participate in the trial, their application for social security will be deferred, and they will not be able to apply for another period of four weeks. So to people who are doing it relatively tough now, living on effectively $40 a day, we're going to say, 'For the next four weeks, if you don't agree to undertake drug testing, you don't get anything, and you can't apply for another four weeks.' As part of the proposal, people will be required to submit to a saliva, urine or hair follicle test at a Centrelink office or at some other nearby location, and these tests will be designed to detect cannabis, heroin, cocaine and amphetamines. If a person fails a drug test, they'll be placed on an income management plan through a BasicsCard. The person who has tested positive will also undergo further random drug tests, the first of which will occur—hardly very random—25 days later. If a person tests positive to a drug test more than once within a 24-month period, they will be referred to Services Australia's contracted medical professionals. If a person fails to attend a mandated treatment or support activities, they will be sanctioned, and this would include having their payment entirely suspended for up to a four-week period. This is not about doing something about drug and alcohol abuse. This is not doing anything other than trying to placate some of those who might spend their time in this place, when they're not listening to debate, tuned into redneck radio and thinking about what it is that we need to do to people who we consider dole bludgers. I think we have to be a little bit more mature than that when we have the honour of representing our respective communities. I can speak for a community that has a disproportionate number of people on Newstart or other forms of welfare, through no fault of their own. They didn't vote to contract manufacturing. They didn't vote to do all these other things. The fact is that there's little likelihood that they're going to be able to sufficiently retrain to get employment in the modern digital economy. They're going to be welfare dependent. This treats them, like anyone else who falls into that category, as being clearly second class. As I said at the start, it's got to be either by mandate or evidence based. Neither is applicable here. As a matter of fact, the evidence that came from those with credibility in this field is all against the government. The Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists came out with couple of clear views that they submitted to the committee considering this bill. They said: Firstly, there is no conclusive evidence that mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients delivers any benefits such as deterring recipients from drug use, increasing levels of employment or reducing welfare spending. They went on to say: Secondly, the notion that illicit drug use is higher amongst the unemployed population and that this results in lowered employment capacities is unfounded. They are the two critical areas that this government has pinned this legislation on—trying to do something about drug use. The government ought to look at other countries where this has been instituted, particularly New Zealand and the United States. Mandated drug testing of welfare recipients was proven to be a failure. For example, the Network of Alcohol and Other Drugs Agencies noted that, in 2013, the New Zealand government did institute drug testing of welfare recipients. They went on to find that, in 2015, only 22 of the 8,000 people who participated in the testing returned a positive result. That indicated that there was no correlation between those on welfare payments and those involved in drug and alcohol abuse. This bill is counterproductive, as the two former iterations of this bill also were. The Australian Council of Social Service notes that the evidence indicates that such a practice could have a high social and economic cost, with the proposal actually making a person's social circumstances even more precarious. Associate Professor Yvonne Bonomo, Director of the Department of Addiction Medicine at St Vincent's Hospital in Melbourne, extrapolated on that and said: The international experience shows that when you push people to the brink, like removing their welfare payments, things just get worse. There will be more crime, more family violence, more distress within society. Clearly—and I make no bones about it—this is going to push people to the brink. This is saying that, unless you cooperate, your welfare payments are going to be postponed for up to four weeks. If you're living on $40 a day, that's going to be pretty significant. Do you know what's going to happen? I do because people tell me all the time. St Vincent de Paul, Mission Australia and other church based organisations tell me that they, because of their moral and religious obligations, will be expected to pick up the slack and look after people. They will not be getting funding for that, but they will still have to do that because of their moral obligation to people in need. This chamber is going to vote on this bill as if it were just any other piece of legislation. It is people's lives that are being played with here. We should look at what makes a difference. I don't disagree that drugs are a huge issue in our society. Those in the police force who I have dealt with over many years tell me that, particularly with respect to the new synthetic drugs. There is a major societal cost. Not only is there an impact on the person but also people under the influence of drugs commit family violence and community violence. We looked at ice in our community. Recommendations were made for the courts to refer people to diversion opportunities. It is one thing for police to arrest and prosecute people, but what do we do for those people after that? Do you put them in jail? If you really wanted to address this issue of drug abuse, you would look at diversion. Lo and behold, whilst everyone thinks it's good to put more effort into arrests and taking people off the streets, we want people to be rehabilitated. They don't put money into diversion opportunities. The courts don't have any opportunity to refer people to counselling or drug services. No extra money goes into that. Simply putting a $10 million price tag on this to assist with the application through this bill doesn't put money into our drug support agencies. It doesn't actually do anything at all there. We are simply going to marginalise people without giving them any real referral prospects to drug and alcohol services. How better off is society after that? We want people off drugs. We want people to be treated. That's all fine. The money's not here to do that; it's just not. Professor Alison Ritter, head of the Drug Policy Modelling Program at the Social Policy Research Centre, found that there are currently between 400,000 and 750,000 people in the country who are in need of drug and alcohol treatment. Those people can't access addiction services at present because they're currently, as I say, underfunded or not available. So I would encourage those opposite to think differently about this and not vote as a bloc simply because it's another right-wing ideal to gang up on people they regard as dole bludgers. They should try and use this opportunity and their time on the treasury bench to make a difference for the better in people's lives. What is being proposed here will not make anything better for those people who are currently welfare recipients. (Time expired) 10:47 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I think this Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019 is a particularly good example of where politicians think they know more than they do, that they don't need to rely on the advice of experts and that they can go to their own ideology or perhaps their close circle of political advisers. The problem with that is you get bad public policy. When you go to experts and ask them what they think about this proposal that Centrelink recipients be pill tested, there is an overwhelming weight of opinion that it's a bad idea and that, instead, it looks like an ideological response from a conservative government who would sooner demonise and marginalise Centrelink recipients than genuinely look at the best way to support them and help them deal with their disability, their age, their unemployment or whatever it is. I think particularly good experts to go to are the college of physicians. I'm going to take the time to read out a media statement made a week ago by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians on 10 October. This was their response to the Senate report endorsing the idea in this bill, or largely supporting it. I think it's a lovely summary of why this bill should not be supported. It's a lovely summary of why I will not support this bill. It reads: Australia's largest specialist medical college is disappointed in a Senate Inquiry report released today, which neglects to consider wide ranging evidence that drug testing welfare recipients leads to more harm than good. The Senate Inquiry report into the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019 has today recommended that the Government pursue their plan to trial drug testing of 5,000 welfare participants across three trial sites. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) remains strongly opposed to this Bill, on the basis that it is not evidence-based, goes against all the expert advice provided to the Government on the matter, and is likely to be clinically harmful to people suffering with drug and/or alcohol addiction. The Bill's stated aim is to improve a recipient's capacity to find employment or participate in education or training by identifying people with drug use issues and assisting them to undertake treatment. It is our careful assessment— that is, the college's— that drug testing will have an adverse rather than positive impact on achieving that outcome. The RACP supports the need for Government action to help overcome drug and alcohol addiction in the community and improve employment outcomes, but drug testing welfare recipients is in no way a solution – in fact, it creates further health problems in the community. The recommendations of this report contradict the expert advice and evidence from all the addiction, health and social care experts, who are united in their opposition to drug testing welfare recipients If the Federal Government is serious about addressing addiction and assisting people to gain employment, it needs to invest in quality, evidence-based alcohol and drug treatment services and a suitably trained workforce. It finishes by saying: Drug testing welfare participants is in no way an effective strategy to improving employment or health outcomes in the community and the RACP urges all Parliamentarians to oppose this Bill which flies in the face of evidence. So why we in this place would ignore the unambiguous, the very strong and clear advice of the RACP beggars belief. I think it could only be explained by ideology run amok. There has been a lot said about exactly why drug testing won't work. If I could branch out and take this opportunity to give some advice to the government on perhaps what they should be doing to assist Centrelink customers, there are so many other things the government could be focusing on. For example and probably most obviously, why don't we actually support Centrelink recipients, all of them, by raising government pensions and payments to levels people can actually live a dignified life on? We talk a lot about Newstart but I think this point really goes to all government pensions and payments. How does, for example, a single age pensioner paying market rent get by? I can't see how they do. They must—I hear this—go without the essentials of life. They go without meals, they go without medicines, and they go without travelling to interact with old friends to foster their health in all those sorts of ways. I've said this before and I'll say it again: I have met age pensioners who will live on a 99c can of baked beans or an 80c can of dog food, and that is in one of the richest countries in the world. Of course, Newstart is perhaps the most striking example of where Centrelink and the government are letting people down. Newstart for a single person with no dependent children is $279 per week. Yes, there are modest other payments that might bolster that, but Newstart for a single person with no dependent children is $279 per week. I recall listening to ABC Radio in Hobart a couple of months ago now. They went out and took the trouble of finding out what the cheapest rental in Hobart was at that point in time. The cheapest rental they could find in Hobart was $280 a week. That was for a little cement block flat which, if you were to see it, you might think was an old toilet block next to an old playing field. So how on earth can anyone live on that level of money? Let's think about jobs. If people are going to get a job, they need to be in good health, they need a roof over their head, they need to be well groomed, they need to have a smart set of clothes, they need to be healthy and in good order, and they need to pay for the transport to get to the job interview. Even things like getting a haircut—20 bucks—you can't do that on that sort of Centrelink payment, so how can you be expected to very promptly get off and get a good job? You can't. When I stand up here as an independent and make these points about the problems with the way we support people through Newstart, some of my colleagues will say, 'Independents, all care, no responsibility, who is going to pay for this?' Let's not forget we are one of the richest countries in the world. Our GDP is the 13th largest in the world. Our GDP per capita is the 10th largest in the world. We are mind-bogglingly lucky and wealthy. This federal government will spend, this financial year, about half a trillion dollars. I propose that the issue is not about whether or not we can support Centrelink customers better; it's: how do we reprioritise the budget to make sure we do look after those people better? While I'm offering advice to the government about how it might better help Centrelink customers, how about the government finally focuses on improving Centrelink service generally? I've jotted some examples down here. People have been waiting months for their application to be assessed and can't get an answer from Centrelink about when their application will be processed. Often any communication these people receive from Centrelink is so brief or poorly drafted that they can't understand what it means. People are spending hours on the phone trying to get through to Centrelink—at a high personal cost—and still not being able to get through; they're hanging up in exasperation or being hung up on. People have called Centrelink multiple times, or been into the office to inquire, only to be told something different every time. People are trying to do the right thing and declare their income correctly, but they can't, because myGov is broken. They go into the actual Centrelink office, and they're referred back to the phone lines or to the broken myGov website. People have been told to email information to Centrelink or to upload it online but have had no confirmation that the information has been received or processed. Often people think that the information has been submitted correctly, but it hasn't and it won't get acted on. People come to me all the time talking about issues with frontline Centrelink staff and lack of communication and the fact that the rush to online Centrelink services has occurred too fast. It has been poorly designed and it's simply unavailable to a lot of Centrelink customers. It's self-evident that Centrelink customers include elderly people, who may not be technologically literate—they may not even have access to the internet—or very disadvantaged people, who can't afford it. There are any number of other reasons why this rush by government agencies to move to online services is happening way too fast for many consumers. I'm not going to miss this opportunity to mention robo-debt again. My colleagues on the crossbench, like the member for Mayo here, and, to their credit, the federal opposition have been very outspoken about all of the problems with robo-debt. For years now Centrelink has been sending out inaccurate debt notices, and it continues to do so. These notices are either entirely unwarranted or the amount is wrong, and there's no explanation of how the amount has been calculated. We've lost track, in our office, of the number of genuinely distressed people who are at wit's end, getting these very official letters. At one stage they even had the AFP logo on some of the Centrelink letters. It was sending people into panic. It was not unusual to have people in tears and even, occasionally, people threatening self-harm. The role of Centrelink is to help the community. It's not to frighten them. It's not to make them feel demonised. Despite the fact that very few Centrelink recipients will have a drug or alcohol addiction, they all live with the threat of drug testing hanging over them. If the government is interested in the perils of illicit drug use, why doesn't it get behind pushing the COAG process in the direction of national pill testing? If we really care about people, let's bolster drug and alcohol services in the community and let's have a national approach to pill testing. Senator Richard Di Natale and I co-hosted a demonstration of pill testing in the parliament several weeks ago. Everyone who was there was mightily impressed by the effectiveness of pill testing. No-one was there saying that we were encouraging our children to take illicit drugs to a party or to a festival. We're not encouraging that. What we're saying is that if someone does have a pill in their pocket then the penalty for using it should not be death. It's that simple. We should have a harm minimisation approach and do everything we can to help our kids. I've got two young children myself, and I'm soon to have three young stepsons. I'm not going to kid myself and think they're not going to experiment. I just want to ensure they're in as safe an environment as possible if they unwisely elect to do that. That's been a bit of a Cook's tour about Centrelink, but it was a good opportunity to talk about the things the government should be focusing on. Let's stop demonising Centrelink recipients. Let's stop scaring Centrelink recipients. Let's stop sending this message to the community that they're either bludgers or drug addicts. They're not. Most people who are on Centrelink pensions and payments—most people who are on Newstart in particular—are just regular people who are having a difficult patch and need a bit of help, and that's what we should be doing: providing help to those people. It is absolutely unambiguous that drug testing is expensive, it's ineffective, it doesn't address the root causes of drug and alcohol addiction and it doesn't provide effective help in itself for people who have an addiction to an illicit drug or to alcohol. So I'll oppose this bill, and I encourage the government to think again about what measures would be more effective and to, for once, make this the area of public policy where they don't just default to their ideological position but instead approach this area of public policy with a genuinely open mind and talk to the experts. When you've got experts like the RACP, the largest medical college in Australia, saying things like, 'Drug-testing welfare participants is in no way an effective strategy to improve employment or health outcomes in the community and it flies in the face of evidence,' and you just treat that with contempt, you're not doing your job as an effective government. You're not governing in the public interest. You're just implementing an ideological agenda, and you should be condemned for it. 11:01 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Centre Alliance will oppose, for the third time in this place, legislation that is seeking to drug-test welfare recipients. I've spoken previously at length on Centre Alliance's views on this proposed legislation, which does not have published costings. We will not, except in the most exceptional of circumstances, support legislation where the government does not share with us and the taxpayer what the cost is. It is reckless for us to make important decisions about taxpayers' funds without knowing how much of Australia's people's money we're spending, and we've been very clear on this point. During the consideration of the welfare reform bill in the last parliament, I examined the evidence for and against drug testing of welfare recipients in great detail, and I can only assume that this legislation, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019, is likely to have a significant financial cost given the cost of similar programs in the United States. Drug-testing programs have often been abandoned in the United States as they've proven to be highly ineffective in discovering drug addicts, completely failing any reasonable cost-benefit analysis benchmark. For example, in 2015 research undertaken by the ThinkProgress project of the Center for American Progress discovered that collectively 10 US states spent more than US$850,000 on their testing regimes but uncovered only 321 positive tests. In more than one of those American states, not a single positive test was found. Based on America's experience, it costs approximately US$2,650 for each positive test secured. How much will it cost us? Experts suggest it will cost in the order of $1,600 per test for each recipient. As Centre Alliance's spokesperson for the Social Services portfolio, I know that Centre Alliance negotiated a balanced and centrist view on the welfare reform bill and that we ended up with a reasoned position based principally upon the advice of our top Australian medical experts in addiction and the expectation of taxpayers that people who are on jobseeking payments are actively looking for work and are required to address their barriers to doing so. In the minister's second reading speech, the minister advised there were 8,638 jobseekers who participated in drug or alcohol treatment as part of their mutual obligations. This shows that the policy levers from that legislation are working, because the previous reforms that we put in place in this place mean that alcohol and drug addiction can no longer be used as an excuse for not engaging. So one has to really question why we are now going down the path of populist drug testing—and that's what it is. We know that people on Newstart who have a substance addiction problem now have the choice of fulfilling their Centrelink job search activity requirements like any other Newstart recipient or putting their hand up and going down a treatment pathway so that they can get their life back on track and become job ready. Because we have already made effective changes to the drug-testing bill, I believe this is an exercise in ideological wedge tactics. It is not an exercise in evidence based policymaking. I'll be quite clear here: Centre Alliance are not a welfare rights party. We are a centrist party that makes decisions based on evidence and sound policymaking. There is no evidence for this, and this is not sound policymaking. The reason the government is doing this is to distract from the fact that Newstart is so woefully pitiful as a payment that people can't survive on it. There are now calls from right across the community and from the business sector—I think even former Prime Minister John Howard has come out and said this—that we need to raise Newstart. The reason the government is bringing this legislation into this place is purely as a distraction. It is nothing more. The member for Clark talked about robo-debts. Robo-debts are causing enormous harm in the community. We know people are taking their lives. They open the letter. It is the last thing they can possibly bear with, and they choose to talk their lives. That is shameful. It is shameful that we are doing this. My office and the member for Clark's office—and I'm sure the offices of many others in this place—are spending a good amount of our time supporting our constituents to have these false debts reduced or waived. This should not be happening. So I urge the government: halt your robo-debts program. You are causing enormous damage to the most vulnerable people in Australia. I want to talk about Newstart recipients. Newstart recipients are generally older Australians, particularly women who have raised children and older women who are struggling to enter the workforce. They are existing on Newstart. It's really hard to even say whether you should call that an 'existence'. The amount on Newstart is so low that you can't afford to rent even the most basic, modest accommodation anywhere in Australia and also eat. So when you're talking about people being 'dole bludgers'—as many people do in this chamber—remember that you are talking about, essentially, older women in your community who are experiencing great difficulty getting into the workplace because they don't have the skills. They've been looking after family and they don't have the work experience and they often don't have a wide range of qualifications. It is exceptionally difficult. I would just like to draw the attention of the chamber to the Jobs Availability Snapshot 2019. It was released this week by Anglicare Australia. If we have a look at the snapshot's findings of people seeking work—people who are unemployed in Australia—there were 704,700 people in May this year. There were 1,160,700 people who were underemployed. The number of job vacancies right across the board was 174,000. Of the level 5 jobs—these are the jobs that we consider entry level, where you do not need to have a huge range of qualifications—there were just 18,000. Just 10 per cent of jobs nationally were available to people who do not have qualifications. We are really setting people up to fail when we don't support them properly with a payment that allows them to get qualifications, and to be able to live properly and to be able to afford to buy clothes to go to that job interview. How humiliating must it be to go to your jobactive person and, on bended knee, ask for a $30 Kmart voucher so you can go and buy a $10 skirt and a $10 shirt—and hope that there are some shoes on clearance—because you just got that magic job interview? And when you go to the job interview—you're a 55-year-old woman, and you have nothing much you can put on your resume. Sure, you did an enormous amount of volunteering, you've been at the school canteen for 10 years and you've raised three fantastic children on your own, but you know you're not going to get the call back. How humiliating must it be? We can do better in this place. As the member for Clark said, we're a wealthy nation. We can do so much better than this. I seek leave of the House to table the Anglicare Australia Jobs Availability Snapshot 2019. Leave granted. Ms SHARKIE 265980 Thank you. Centre Alliance stands ready to support legislation that meaningfully seeks to address drug addiction. We recognise the importance of incentives but we will not support policy that is grounded in short-term political gains rather than in evidence, regardless of how many times the government seek to pass it through this House. To those on the government side that wring their hands and say, 'Yes, I know, we need to raise Newstart': push for it in your party room. We need to address this in this place this year. We are failing Australians by not doing so. 11:11 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019 introduces a two-year trial of drug testing for illicit drug use of 5,000 new recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance in three trial sites. This trial is designed to test the effectiveness of drug testing and treatment, including income management, as a way to support jobseekers who have drug abuse issues to overcome their barriers to employment so that they can find and keep a job. This bill demonstrates the government's commitment to tackling substance dependence and supporting people into work. During the first year of the trial, 5,000 new jobseekers in three locations across Australia will be selected randomly and tested for the presence of illicit drugs. The trial will operate in Canterbury Bankstown, New South Wales; Logan, Queensland; and Mandurah, Western Australia. People who test positive for illicit drugs will be placed on income management. Income management is a personalised intervention and does not reduce the amount of a person's income support payment. Instead, it changes the way a person's payment is delivered. Under income management, the majority of their income support will go directly to paying essential bills or onto a BasicsCard, which can be used to buy things like groceries and transport. Jobseekers who return a second positive drug test during the trial period will be assessed by a contracted medical professional who has expertise in drug addiction. Any treatment that is recommended by the medical profession will become a compulsory activity in the person's job plan. This will ensure that they engage with treatment that is appropriate as part of their mutual obligation requirements. To support jobseekers in the drug-testing trial, the government has also announced an additional $10 million treatment fund. The treatment fund will boost existing capacity in trial sites and assist people to undertake treatment that is recommended for them by a medical professional, should existing Commonwealth- or state-funded services not be able to meet any additional demand as a result of the trial. It will also provide funding for case management services. This bill demonstrates the government's commitment to the drug-testing trial, which is a unique and innovative approach to helping people with drug abuse issues. The government believes that randomised drug testing can be an effective way of identifying welfare recipients for whom mandated treatment may be successful. A comprehensive evaluation will be conducted in parallel with the trial. This approach will ensure that any unintended consequences can be captured in real time. The evaluation will build a body of evidence on the efficacy of this unique trial where jobseekers with drug abuse issues will be placed on income management and supported to access treatment. While drug testing is currently used in Australia by some employers and has also been used overseas in relation to welfare recipients, there is little comparable evidence available to tell us whether this sort of intervention would be effective in the Australian welfare context. This government's measure is designed to help identify jobseekers for whom drug use is an issue. The purpose of testing welfare recipients in the drug-testing trial is to find people who may need help to address a barrier to employment that they may not have acknowledged or disclosed previously. The trial will ensure the welfare system does not support illicit drug use and continues to provide a safety net for those who need it most. This trial is complemented by a suite of other measures to address drug and alcohol abuse issues in welfare recipients and support these jobseekers to overcome barriers to getting into work. Since 1 January 2018, for the first time all jobseekers have been able to include drug and alcohol treatment in their job plan and have this contribute to meeting their annual activity requirement. This measure supports jobseekers with drug and alcohol abuse issues and allows them to have a job plan that is properly tailored to their needs. Since this measure started on 1 January 2018, more than 5,047 stream A and B jobseekers who could not have previously done this have participated in a drug or alcohol treatment activity as part of their job plan. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Act 2018 passed two other measures to ensure that jobseekers with substance abuse issues remain actively engaged in appropriate activities, including treatment, to address their barriers to work. Under one measure, jobseekers are no longer granted an exemption from their mutual obligation requirements, including activities such as JobSearch and preparing for work, due to drug or alcohol abuse issues. Instead, they will remain connected with their employment services provider. Seeking an exemption on these grounds will trigger a conversation with their provider about their drug or alcohol issues and enable their activities to be tailored to address their needs. The welfare reform act also passed a measure to tighten the reasonable-excuse rules and prevent jobseekers from repeatedly using drug and alcohol dependency as an excuse for not meeting their requirements without being prepared to do anything about it. Instead, they will be encouraged to undertake treatment as part of their mutual obligation requirements. We know that drug use can be a major barrier to finding and keeping a job. The drug-testing trial will test an innovative method of assisting people with drug abuse issues. The government consider it critical to do all we can to help vulnerable jobseekers address their barriers to employment so that they can get and keep a job. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Barton has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question before the House is that the amendment be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business, this is why I have not locked the doors—so you can talk. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, I have spoken with the Leader of the House to raise that, when the division was first called, the monitors all indicated that it was a quorum rather than a division. Who knows what will happen, but it may assist the House if we just do it again because, if we have to unravel it, it will take a good deal longer. The SPEAKER 00APG My understanding is it did say quorum and then went to a division, but if someone has looked at it and then gone away then I think what we will do is—I haven't locked the doors—just ring the bells again for four minutes. 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. So the question before the House is that the amendment moved by the member for Barton be agreed to.

The House divided. [11:29]
(The Speaker—the Hon. Tony Smith)

 63 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Haines, H Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Payne, AE Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Thwaites, KL Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 70 NOES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Buchholz, S Chester, D Coleman, DB Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Marino, NB Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:32 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. [11:32]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 70 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Buchholz, S Chester, D Coleman, DB Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Marino, NB Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Steggall, Z Stevens, J Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 64 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Haines, H Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Payne, AE Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Thwaites, KL Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill announced

 Third Reading 22 11:37 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019 23

National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019

Second Reading 23 11:38 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I present a revised explanatory memorandum to this bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. The National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019 (the bill) contributes to the Australian government's comprehensive plan to address housing affordability, announced in the 2017-18 budget. The bill makes amendments to the National Rental Affordability Scheme Act 2008 (NRAS Act), to streamline and simplify the administration of the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) until it ceases operation in 2026-27. On 19 October 2017, the Senate referred the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017, which included the amendments to the NRAS Act contained in this bill, to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, the committee, for inquiry and report. The committee recommended that the housing affordability bill be passed. National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendments to the NRAS Act The government's amendments clarify and expand the power to make regulations under the NRAS Act, by removing any doubt that the NRAS Regulations can provide for protections and rights for investors in NRAS, and for the tenants of NRAS rental properties. The amendments will allow the making of regulations that will require approved participants to pass on annual state and territory contributions to investors within a reasonable time. The amendments also clarify and expand the power to make regulations about the transfer of allocations from one rental property to another rental property, the imposition of additional conditions and changing conditions on existing allocations, and the transfer of allocations to another approved participant. The NRAS Act requires the NRAS Regulations to prescribe that the rent charged for an approved rental dwelling must be at least 20 per cent less than the market rent 'at all times during the year'. The expression 'at all times during the year' has been subject to different interpretations over the years, including a view that the requirement is satisfied if the rent charged over the course of a year is at least 20 per cent less than the market rent. This amendment confirms the intended interpretation, which is that each time rent is charged, it must be at least 20 per cent less than the market rent. There may be circumstances where a specific charge for rent is higher than permitted because of a mistake. The amendments to the NRAS Act will permit the NRAS Regulations to provide for the secretary of the Department of Social Services to have a power of dispensation for a breach of the requirement in a specific instance, where it is established that the excessive charge for rent occurred because of inadvertence and the tenant has been fully compensated for the error. The NRAS Act requires the NRAS Regulations to prescribe maximum vacancy periods for approved rental dwellings. The prescriptive nature of the current vacancy provisions has been amended to allow greater flexibility for the NRAS Regulations to prescribe permitted vacancy periods. This flexibility will assist in the future administration of NRAS should changes be required on how the maximum vacancy periods are to operate. The Commonwealth relies on a number of heads of legislative power under the Constitution to support the NRAS Act. The amendments set out these constitutional powers and give the NRAS Act operation within the scope of these powers. While most of the approved participants in NRAS behave appropriately in relation to investors, a small number of approved participants do not treat investors fairly. Examples of poor behaviour include delays in passing on incentives to investors, and the provision of misleading communications to investors. The amendments will allow the secretary of the Department of Social Services to accept and then, if necessary, enforce a voluntary enforceable undertaking from an approved participant. This compliance tool will assist the Department of Social Services to modify the behaviour of some approved participants. In some cases, accepting an enforceable undertaking may be a more appropriate compliance response than transferring or revoking an allocation. There will be no further new allocations in NRAS. The amendments to the NRAS Act will allow the NRAS Regulations to be simplified by the removal of provisions relating to the issue of new allocations. The government is committed to reducing rental costs for low- and moderate-income households. This bill lays the foundation for improving the NRAS legislative framework to support the efficient administration of NRAS. 11:44 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Labor supports this bill, the National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019. The National Rental Affordability Scheme was set up by Labor when we were in government in 2008. Investors under the scheme are provided with 10-year contracts, through both state and federal funding, and rent is provided at at least 20 per cent below market rates. When the Abbott government came to power in 2013, they cut all new funding for the scheme and they capped it at 38,000 dwellings. They also did not replace this scheme with anything else. NRAS, at the moment, is still helping a lot of people with the cost of housing, but the number of people that benefit from this scheme is now reducing every year. This year, around 1,141 families across Australia will drop out of the scheme. Next year, another 1,368 families or individuals will see their rent rise as they drop out of the scheme. In 2021, it will be 3,059 families that will drop out of the scheme, and in 2022 that will almost double again—6,362 Australian families that are currently benefiting from this scheme will see their rents rise by up to, and in some circumstances more than, 20 per cent. By 2026, there won't be any Australians left benefiting from the National Rental Affordability Scheme. Until then, though, the scheme will keep operating, and it's important that it operate as well as it possibly can. That's the intention behind this legislation. We think that it will help to do that. We believe that it will make some important changes to the operation of the existing National Rental Affordability Scheme, and that's why Labor is happy to support it. In particular, it improves protections for tenants and investors. It ensures that any payments to investors are done in a timely manner to ensure NRAS stock is not withdrawn from the scheme. It also removes ambiguity in relation to the calculation of below-market rents in any one year and provides flexibility in the way maximum periods of vacancy are prescribed. The bill was examined by a parliamentary committee. That occurred before the election, in the last parliament, and we're very grateful that the government has agreed to incorporate some of the recommendations that Labor members made in that parliamentary inquiry. As part of the process of assessing this legislation, Labor has consulted with stakeholders including the National Affordable Housing Providers, the National Affordable Housing Consortium and the Community Housing Industry Association. They support this legislation. The next step, once this legislation is passed by the parliament, is the development of regulations that will help implement it. I ask that the government, in developing those regulations, consult with those organisations that support this legislation and are keen to see it implemented effectively. Those regulations will be very important. We always benefit, in the development of laws in this place and of regulations that help implement them, by making sure that we're consulting with the stakeholders who use this legislation and rely upon it. This bill was debated by the Senate back in July. As part of that process, we proposed a number of amendments to the bill, principally to ensure that the departmental secretary retains the ability to make new allocations under the National Rental Affordability Scheme. The legislation, as presented to the parliament, proposed to remove that power from the departmental secretary. We argued—and I'm glad that the government has agreed—that that power should be retained. What that means is that, if this government or a future government wanted to extend NRAS funding, they'd be able to do so. The government has made it clear that they've got no intention of doing that, and that's their decision. But, in our mind, there is no need—and I'm glad the government has agreed—to take this power away. Therefore we will move the amendment. As I said, the government agreed to that amendment, and we thank them for it. But there are bigger issues here than just what the government is trying to address in this legislation. Australia has a housing crisis. Homeownership rates are now at their lowest levels in 50 years, rental stress is through the roof, and more Australians are now homeless than ever before. These are big issues that this place and that this government need to confront, and it's not doing it. That's why, as part of this debate, 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 this Liberal Government slashed the original cap of 50,000 dwellings in the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) to 38,000; and (2) also notes that as a result of the Government's continuing inaction to meaningfully address housing affordability:    (a) the percentage of Australians who own their own home has dropped to its lowest level since Robert Menzies was Prime Minister back in the 1960s;    (b) the number of Australians behind in their mortgage payments today is at its greatest level since the global financial crisis;    (c) a report released last month by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare showed that in 2017-18 over 1 million low-income households were in financial housing stress and that 43.1 per cent of low income households renting in Australia are suffering rental stress; and    (d) there are more homeless Australians than ever before". A report that came out this year from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows that over the last 10 years we have lost more than 20,000 public homes. Public housing construction hasn't kept pace with population growth. People in private rental are really struggling. Rental stress is through the roof, particularly in major cities, like Sydney and Melbourne, and even in places like Hobart. Rental stress in Hobart is worse than anywhere else in the country. We have seen people really struggling to keep up with the increased cost of rent. A recent report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare showed that more than 40 per cent of Australians on low incomes who rent are now in rental stress. In other words, they are paying more than 30 per cent of their available income just to keep a roof over their heads. The shutting down of the National Rental Affordability Scheme without replacing it with something else is only going to make this situation worse. As I said earlier, in the next six years 37,000 families are going to see their rent go up as a result of the closure of this scheme. That means that, on average, about 160 families in every one of the 151 electorates represented in this place are going to see their rent go up massively over the course of the next few years. We have an economy that is really struggling at the moment. The report that came from the IMF this week predicted that economic growth in the years ahead is going to be weaker in Australia than in countries like Greece. Bills are going up but wages aren't. Interest rates are at crisis levels. When we were going through the global financial crisis a decade ago interest rates were at three per cent. They are now less than one per cent. Consumer confidence is down, business confidence is down and housing construction—the building of homes—is down, yet the government keep telling us that nothing is wrong. They try to convince us and the Australian people that everything is hunky-dory. Well, it's not. There are a lot of people who are really struggling. The best evidence of that is the struggle that people have on a daily basis to pay their mortgage and to pay their rent—to get a roof over their heads. According to the Reserve Bank, there are now more people in Australia who are struggling to pay their mortgage and more people in Australia who are in arrears on their mortgage repayments than at any time since the global financial crisis. That should tell you that there's something wrong. That should tell us that people really are struggling and that it's not just made up. People don't stop paying their mortgage unless they're in real strife. As I said before, people are struggling to pay their rent as well. There are now more than a million people in Australia on low incomes who are in housing stress, who are paying more than 30 per cent of their income in rent. Homelessness—the sharpest, hardest edge of all of this—is also on the rise. According to the last census, there are more people who are homeless today in Australia—who are sleeping rough, couch surfing or sleeping on a train just to keep warm—than ever before in Australia. I will give just one example of what that means. On the weekend, Foodbank, the organisation that helps to provide food to people in need across Australia, released its latest report, and it showed that, over the last 12 months, there has been a 22 per cent increase in the number of people seeking food relief from the charities that they provide to. That's massive—in the last 12 months there's been a 22 per cent increase in the number of people seeking food from Foodbank. You don't go to a local charity and ask for food unless you're hungry and you can't afford to get it yourself. That should tell us that there's a problem here. I mentioned housing construction as well. That's a barometer of how strong the economy is, how the economy is going—and it's going backwards as well. Building approvals for the construction of residential housing are in freefall. They've gone down by almost 22 per cent in the last year. Construction job ads are down 35 per cent from their peak just over a year ago. We've already lost 50,000 jobs in construction in the last 12 months. The government talk a lot about jobs, and so they should; there is nothing more important in the work that we do here than keeping Australians safe and keeping Australians employed. There have been 50,000 people on the tools working in the construction industry who have lost their job over the course of the last 12 months—and, if you believe UBS, who have done analysis in this area, they predict that there could be another 100,000 Australians who work in the construction sector who are going to lose their job in the next 12 months. That's on top of all of the issues that the minister across the table is very familiar with in terms of flammable cladding and shonky building inspectors. All of that is very bad, and the minister says that's a state issue. That's typical of this government that just wants to wipe its hands of any responsibility for anything. The bottom line is that you've got an economy that is weak, an economy that's struggling—and people expect us, when we come here, to do our job, to work hard for them and to make their lives easier, not to have ministers say, 'Well, technically, according to the law, that's not my responsibility.' That shows just how out of touch this minister and this government are. Today, the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank made a speech in Sydney. He talked about exactly what I'm talking about here: about problems in the construction sector. He said that there's a 'sizeable downturn' underway in the construction sector and that it's a drag on the economy. He said that the Reserve Bank of Australia is expecting housing investment to drop by a 'further seven per cent' next year. So it's already dropping and already costing Australia jobs, and the Reserve Bank is expecting it to drop again by seven per cent next year. He said that the 'decline could even be larger' and that that had the potential to take at least one per cent off overall GDP growth. When the Reserve Bank is cutting interest rates to crisis levels, when economic growth is predicted to be less than Greece, when we've already also lost 50,000 jobs in the construction sector and when the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank comes out today and says that it's expected to get even worse and that's going to hurt economic growth, that should be ringing alarm bells in this place. It should be ringing alarm bells for this government. Instead of saying, 'That's not our responsibility,' the government should be taking action here to make sure that we turn this around. But all we get from this government is this head-in-the-sand, 'not our responsibility' approach. The result of that approach will be that more people will struggle to keep a roof over their head; more people will struggle to pay the mortgage; more people will struggle to pay the rent; and more jobs will be lost in the construction sector. It could be very different. The Australian people expect their government to be focused on these issues. They expect the Australian government to understand how important the housing sector is to keeping the Australian economy strong. They expect the Australian government to understand how important housing is to ordinary, everyday Australians who are struggling to pay the mortgage, struggling to pay the rent or struggling just to have a roof over their heads at all. And now we've got jobs being lost in their thousands in the construction sector as the economy gets weaker. It's time for the government to act. The Australian people deserve a government that's focused on this. They don't have one at the moment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Rowland 159771 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Blaxland 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. 12:00 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I rise to speak in support of the member for Blaxland's amendment to the motion for the second reading of the National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019. While Labor will support the National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill, we know that this bill does not entirely tackle the challenges that we have in making sure that everyone has access to affordable housing. I believe, as a baseline, that everyone deserves access to affordable housing. It's fundamental to a fair go, the most quintessential of Labor values and Australian values. But what does that actually mean? For me and my family, when my parents came to settle in Australia, a new country, as migrants from Egypt in the early seventies, having access to affordable housing helped them settle and gave them that baseline. Thanks to the policies of Labor governments working to ensure a fair go for all, my parents were able to raise me and my sister in a home that didn't cost them an arm and a leg, that was affordable. That's not to say that growing up in public housing as a houso was easy; it wasn't. But it did give us at least a good start in life. It gave us an opportunity and a chance to succeed like anyone else in Australia. Access to affordable homes, quality education and health care is the key to ensuring that in Australia, no matter who you are, where you've come from, your ethnic background, your class or your gender, you have an equal chance to succeed. But the reality is that this government doesn't really care about that fair go, as it shows in its actions. This idea that everyone deserves a safe, affordable house or home is really being denied by this government, and it has no real plan to change this. If you look at my local electorate—obviously this issue is personal to me, but it's also personal to so many of the people that live in my electorate of Wills—one out of three people in Wills is a renter. That's about 25,000 people, and almost 30 per cent of them are struggling in housing that they can't afford. That's almost 7,000 people in our community that are seriously struggling. There are about 770 people in my electorate who are experiencing homelessness. The government has no plan to make housing more affordable for the people in my electorate, and it certainly has no plan to make housing more affordable for people across Australia. If you're struggling to pay your rent or your mortgage, this government has no plan for you. If you're shut out of getting into the market to buy your first property because prices are too high, this government has no plan for you. If you're someone who doesn't have a home to go to—if you're someone who's living on our streets or in your car—this government certainly has no plan for you. Much worse than that, what's the contribution of the assistant minister for homelessness, the very person in this place trusted with the responsibility for taking action and putting policies in place to change this? He wants to 'put a positive spin on homelessness'. What an insult! Australians who are homeless don't want spin. They want a plan. They want action taken to address the issues that they face every day. But, frankly, it doesn't matter who you are; the government have nothing to offer, really, on housing. They seem perfectly content to see people paying more and more of their income for housing. The Productivity Commission, in a report that was released last month, found that rental stress for people on lower incomes was growing. The number of low-income households experiencing this stress has actually doubled over the past 20 years. Two-thirds of low-income households spend more than 30 per cent of their income on rent, although many would be spending even more than this. This is the commonly used metric for the term 'rental stress' that we're talking about here. The report noted that, in Australia, about 170,000 households have less than $250 available each week after paying rent. So, clearly, more and more people on lower incomes are renting. This problem is not going anywhere. But the government has no solution for it and is hiding from it by putting out 'positive spin'—whatever that means. According to the Productivity Commission, one of the reasons that more and more people on lower incomes are renting in the private market is that they can't access public housing or they can't afford to buy. As I said, 50 years ago, my parents got access to public housing. We grew up in a housing commission home. Back then, public housing stock as a percentage of total housing stock was some seven to eight per cent. Fast-forward to today: public housing stock in this country is around 4.2 per cent of total housing. We all know that our population has increased significantly since then, yet the percentage of housing that's public housing has effectively halved—if not more. Compare this to countries like Denmark, which has public housing stock of 20 per cent. France has 46 per cent in low-rent housing that's subsidised. Even the UK has had, at peak, public housing stock of almost 50 per cent. These challenges around housing are connected, and pressure in one area means pressure in others. If you don't invest in public housing, something is going to happen elsewhere. Where is the government when it comes to these challenges? Nowhere. The bill before us in this House is a demonstration of the government's attitude towards one of our country's most pressing challenges. It makes some minor administrative amendments to the National Rental Affordability Scheme. It addresses some of the administrative concerns that tenants and investors have raised—I give credit to the government there. It addresses some of the issues around timelines of payments to the investor and the way that below-market rates are calculated, but it doesn't go much further than that. This bill is really not about addressing the widespread challenge of rental affordability, that's for sure. If the government had had their way with this bill, they would have made sure that, if a future government wanted to continue the scheme beyond 2026, it would have required new legislation. It would have meant that, if a future government wanted to continue funding this program, they would have had to pass new legislation. We stopped that in the Senate. That is no longer part of this bill, thanks to Labor senators putting forward an amendment which passed the Senate. But that is a very small victory in the context of this government's abysmal failure on affordable housing. The National Rental Affordability Scheme was created by the Rudd Labor government in 2008. We're proud of this program and that it helps thousands of people by enabling eligible tenants to rent private properties at 20 per cent below the market rental value, but this government has failed private renters who are struggling with rent. While this program is here to help people, Labor's original plan allowed for 50,000 new homes as part of the program. The Liberal government slashed this to 38,000 homes and has never restored it. The government have no real interest in continuing this program beyond 2026. The government have not provided any new funding to the scheme since the Abbott government in 2014. So—worse than doing nothing—those in this government are happy to go backwards and reverse the little progress we have actually made. They will start to take people off this program this year, because they have stopped funding it. So about 1,100 people will come off the scheme this year. That's 1,100 people who will be paying 20 per cent more rent, thanks to this government's action in this place. There will be another 1,300 people in 2020 and another 3,000 people in 2021. You get the picture. It's just going to get worse. When all is said and done, this government's intent is to lower the number of affordable homes in our country. The quantum of that is going to be around 36,000. As I said when I started my speech, my parents and I got an opportunity when we came to this country because we got access to public housing. We got access to affordable housing in a housing commission home. It was difficult. It was tough. But we were so appreciative of the fact that we were given that equality of opportunity—access to affordable housing, access to education and access to health care—so that we could achieve based on our hard work, our merit and our sweat. We didn't ask for any big favours, just a bit of a levelling of the playing field—that's all—and Labor governments provided that. They gave millions of Australians that equality of opportunity. As we debate this bill and the amendments to this bill, the actual fact is: what comes out of this bill is a reversal of that equality of opportunity. Thousands of people over the next couple of years are going to be paying more in rent as they're going to be taken off this scheme. It's not just not doing anything, or putting positive spin on the crisis in housing in this country; it's actually going backwards, and that is a crying shame. 12:10 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I commend the previous speech from my colleague and the previous speeches that really demonstrate to me, unfortunately, again, that this is a government that doesn't understand the basics, the fundamentals, of equality of opportunity in Australia. Stable, affordable, permanent housing is the most important social determinant of health. As a paediatrician, I know how adversely affected many of my patients have been by the lack of stable, affordable housing. I have seen children with significant disability moved from house to house, area to area, because they couldn't get stable housing. That impacted on not only their education but also their health and their futures. This National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill is—as one of my heroes, Rex Mossop, who was a rugby league and rugby union player and broadcaster from many years ago, would say—like deja vu all over again. This government continues to attack the most vulnerable. It is a tragedy and it is something that will affect some of the most vulnerable people in our communities for the rest of their lives. This government doesn't understand the real lack of opportunity that this will cause. The National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill largely replicates proposals in schedule 3 to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017. That earlier bill was introduced by the Turnbull government on 14 September 2017 but, although considered extensively in both houses, failed to pass before the calling of the May 2019 election. So it's now over two years since this bill was originally considered. The delay is only partly explained by the inquiry undertaken by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs which reported in December 2017. The government did not respond to that report until 17 October 2018, about a year afterwards, and the bill and government sponsored amendments to it were debated and passed by the House on 28 November 2018. The National Rental Affordability Scheme seeks to encourage large-scale private investment in housing by offering accredited institutional investors an incentive to increase the supply of affordable rental housing while reducing by around 20 per cent the rental costs to low- and middle-income households. The scheme was introduced by federal Labor in 2008 by the then housing minister, the member for Sydney, in cooperation with the states and territories. The scheme was designed to bring on up to 50,000 new rental properties across Australia. That target figure was never reached, due to the Abbott government's infamous—and I underline 'infamous'—2014 budget cuts which effectively capped the number of supported rentals at 38,000. That infamous budget, of course, proposed cuts to a whole range of services to the most vulnerable in our community, including health services, and was, by common consent, the worst budget in the last 20 years. Since then, the number of allocations has been steadily declining, and that rate of decline will accelerate sharply during the life of this parliament. The Abbott government's 2014 cuts were opposed by virtually all stakeholders, including industry, service providers, welfare and support groups, housing groups and building groups. Even those who were critical of aspects of the scheme wanted the NRAS to continue. The NRAS was looked at by the National Audit Office in 2015 and 2016. The ANAO recommended some administrative changes but did not propose winding up the scheme. In 2017 the Turnbull government commissioned a review of the scheme by Deloitte, but, as I understand it, the report has never been released. One has to ask why it has not been released. This is a government that's very good at marketing itself but not very good on facts, not very good on science and not very good on evidence. And the people that pay the price for that ineptitude are the most vulnerable people in our society. As things stand, the scheme is going to finish in 2026. The present bill was amended, on Labor's initiative, in the Senate to enable a future government to continue the operation of the National Rental Affordability Scheme—should it desire to do so—beyond 2026, which is also a commonsense change, although not the wholesale change that we think is needed. It's difficult to see the harm here in leaving law on the books that simply allows the government of the day, of whatever political colour, to extend the operation of a scheme that has assisted the most vulnerable. Before the 18 May election, Labor committed itself to retaining this scheme in one form or another—ideally in an improved form—and our position has been that it would be better to leave open the option of improving the existing scheme, using much of the current administrative and legislative architecture, than to let the scheme lapse in 2026 and have to re-establish it at a later date. For its part, Labor is not seeking to delay further the enactment of this bill in the form recently agreed to by the Senate. Even critics of the NRAS can see that more, not less, needs to be done to improve access to affordable housing. Certainly that's obvious in my home city of Sydney. Even in the south-west of Sydney, where my electorate of Macarthur is based, housing affordability is becoming more and more of an issue, particularly for those families who have increasing instability in work and increasing cost-of-living pressures. The Grattan Institute stated in a recent paper that was critical of the scheme: Many low-income renters are in poverty, and many more are suffering financial stress. Inequality is increasing because rising housing costs have disproportionately whittled away the income growth of poorer households. A growing number of Australians are becoming homeless. Low-income Australians clearly need more support with housing. The question is how. With that I wholeheartedly agree. As a nation, we need to do a much better job of providing decent, affordable housing for all Australians. This government says it believes in home ownership and seeing more Australians in their own homes. Belief is one thing; action is another. Since the mid-1970s, coalition governments have tended to nibble around the edges of housing policy, the argument being that it's primarily a state responsibility. The coalition's approach is deeply flawed. It fails to recognise that many Commonwealth policies affect the states and territories and their ability to meet their own housing targets. Housing, nationally, would benefit from additional Commonwealth involvement and funding, and I think we all agree on this. This bill, like the address delivered by the Governor-General on behalf of the government on 2 July, simply confirms that the re-elected Morrison government has nothing new to offer on housing. As with the Abbott and Turnbull governments, this government will do little directly to improve housing affordability and access to public and social housing, and little to make it easier for the most disadvantaged to have a stable roof over their heads. It refuses to limit the negative and market-distorting effects of its taxation policies, and it lacks a national population policy as well. Some might argue that it wants the economic benefits of high levels of immigration but refuses to bear its full share of the costs. Certainly the New South Wales state government would agree with that. The housing policies of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments are perhaps more attuned to a time when homeownership was within reach of many single-income families earning a living wage. As the report issued by the government's own Australian Institute of Home and Welfare on 11 September this year confirms, that era is long gone. While a high proportion of our population is still well housed, we are no longer the world leaders with respect to home ownership. Increasingly, Australians are more likely to be mortgagees or renters for life. Many older people are reaching the end of their working lives with mortgages. The current reality no longer matches national homeownership aspirations past or present. We are still a rich country, but, for all our wealth and even after 28 years of uninterrupted economic growth, around 120,000 people are homeless and many more live in housing related poverty. A disproportionate number of the homeless are young but older Australians, particularly older female Australians, are now the fastest-growing age demographic struggling to find shelter and support. About the same number of Australians now rent as own their own home outright. Around 31 per cent live in a dwelling they own outright, close to 35 per cent live in a property with a partly paid off mortgage and just over 30 per cent—and increasing—live in rental accommodation. Rates of outright ownership are in decline and it's taking longer, on average, for mortgages to be cleared. That is notwithstanding historically very low interest rates and the rise and rise in the two- or multiple-income family. The percentage of renters is rising steadily and is not predominantly being driven by choice. Many more Australians than ever will never be able to own their own home. Younger Australians are more and more reliant on the bank of mum and dad to get a home of their own. They're the lucky ones of their generation. Many more Australians live in social or public housing, if they can find it, as both are subject to ever-lengthening waiting lists. Government programs, policies and the weight of federal government support, including massive tax expenditures, are more heavily geared to helping homebuyers than renters. That too speaks more to a bygone age when most Australians could reasonably expect to own their own home or flat outright before retirement. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's 2019 report confirms that rental stress is most common among low-income renters and is increasing. Rental stress now affects just on half of low-income renters living in the capital cities. A short reprieve from rapidly rising house prices in the eastern state capital cities appears to be ending. Barring a recession, the often overheated and volatile housing markets of the last 20 years seem likely to return. Housing prices, having briefly declined in Sydney and Melbourne, appear to have stabilised, and prices are now on the rise again in most capital cities. The small changes made by industry regulators in mid-2017 seem to be wearing thin, as many had expected they would. If familiar patterns repeat, the pick-up in capital city house prices and residential rents will again outstrip rises in household income by a long way. Housing affordability will further decline and conveniently sited private rental accommodation, already out of reach for most low-income earners, will increasingly be beyond the means of many even middle-income earners as well. The difficulty of finding suitable and affordable housing is often seen as mostly affecting the young. However, that is changing. A recent report on homeownership by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute found that homeownership rates were falling while mortgage debts were rising for older Australians. Consequently, the number of private renters aged 54 to 64 is rapidly increasing. It's projected to increase by over 50 per cent to 560,000 people by 2031. For those over 65, many of whom are eligible for the age pension, the increase is even more acute, with those renting expected to double in the same time to just under 600,000. Regrettably, the federal government has become one of the main problems for housing affordability rather than an institute for finding a solution. Poorly targeted, timid and ill-judged policies have stoked record levels of private debt while soaking up Commonwealth funds that might otherwise have been used to help those in the greatest need. Concerted and coordinated action by the Commonwealth is desperately needed. Will it happen? I doubt it very much. The Governor-General's opening address to the parliament setting out the government's third-term priorities offered little comfort to those shut out of the housing market and to those in rental accommodation. The same can be said for this bill. It neither enhances access to housing nor reduces the cost of renting. Together, the bill and the Governor-General's address mainly serve to confirm that the federal coalition has done little new thinking on housing policy for the best part of the last 10 years. With this bill, the Commonwealth is, again, merely tinkering at the edges of housing policy. There's a commitment of sorts over the next three years to spend a billion dollars to help deal with bottlenecks in the housing supply. That money—largely to address market and regulatory failings—is welcome, but it is long overdue. It deals with only a small piece of the housing puzzle. It is not within a bull's roar of the comprehensive solutions that all levels of government, acting resolutely and together, could deliver. Unfortunately, this bill does little for the most urgent need of many Australian families, and that is stable housing. 12:25 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth Every Australian should have a place to call home: a place they can afford, a place they feel secure, a place that gives them shelter, decency and access to everything else that comes with their innate rights as a human being. The sad reality is that the last time we saw a substantial investment in public housing and a long-term commitment to public housing was in 2008, under the Rudd government. I pulled out the member for Sydney's speech introducing the original national rental affordability scheme bill. The challenges that it outlined are, basically, exactly the same as what we face today—11 years on. There are many low- and moderate-income earners who are stuck in the rental market. We have a situation where rent rises—as the member for Sydney said 11 years ago—are outstripping wages and inflation. There is a poor supply of rental properties and, unfortunately, because of the 2014 cap on the National Rental Affordability Scheme by the then Abbott government, we continue to see this problem across our entire country. I personally didn't grow up in public housing, but through natural market forces my parents were able to enter the homeownership market by purchasing a house opposite the, then still operating, Fremantle prison. That was my first family home. I note that when it comes to public housing and experience, the only person who is in public housing in this chamber is, of course, the Prime Minister. I think we really need to engage with the experiences of people who rely on these sort of schemes, to make sure that they can have enough money to pay for everything else—their food, medical expenses, education and the rest. The good thing about this bill is that it does address investor and tenant concerns with the operation of the National Rental Affordability Scheme. Ensuring that investors receive payments in a timely manner is something that Labor supports. It stops stock being withdrawn from the scheme, which then leads to increases in rent for people who may seek to stay in that particular property. It removes ambiguity in terms of the calculation for below-market rents. It is unfortunate when you have a debate between a tenant and a landlord about whether or not something is, indeed, below market. This bill will address that. It's, proudly, a Labor program that we're talking about today. As I said before, it's one of the largest single investments in affordable housing that we've seen in recent times. Implemented in 2008, the scheme aims to have properties at 20 per cent below market rates. The scheme initially provided for some 50,000 homes with a view that, in 2012, you would be able to expand that to another 50,000 homes once the scheme had proved successful. The fact we're amending the scheme shows that, in many ways, it has been successful—but it is only one part of that solution to provide affordable housing for Australian families. The slash-and-burn budget of 2014 did cap the number of dwellings at 38,000. It means that we have fewer affordable properties for low-income families than we should in this country. It was criticised, and I pay tribute to the business groups that actually criticised that decision of the Abbott government. The budget of 2014 had many things wrong with it, but it was good to see people's increasing realisation about this issue. That included the Property Council and others, who have been active in my electorate in recent days and, indeed, today, advocating for more public housing. We know that there's a need. What we have seen from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute shows that, from 2011 to 2016, government expenditure on social housing decreased some seven per cent. We know that the amount of available stock is decreasing, not increasing. Again, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute estimates that there is a deficit of some 200,000 affordable dwellings across the Australian housing market. If we wanted just to catch up, then between now and 2026 we would need to be adding an additional 17,000 homes across the nation just to deal with that deficit. So this is an important bill. It makes sure that we get a little bit down that track, but it doesn't really address those big structural challenges we have in terms of making sure that every Australian has somewhere to call home. The sector is not just confined, of course, to the National Rental Affordability Scheme. There are some 812,000 tenants in some 396,000 households in the social housing sector across Australia. When you look at what those particular households are experiencing, the estimate is that between four and 24 per cent of those dwellings are considered overcrowded—that is, the houses are not appropriate for the people who are living in them. At the same time, between seven and 26 per cent of those houses are underutilised—that is, there is too much space for the people who are in them. Our social housing system across the states and the Commonwealth doesn't work for so many people who are relying on it. Then you get to the people who don't even have access to that system. On census night in 2016, the estimation was that there were some 9,000 people in Western Australia who were homeless—did not have somewhere to call home, did not have a mortgage, did not have even a lease for a rental property. That night, across the country, some 116,000 Australians did not have somewhere to call home. Most of the anecdotal evidence is that these figures are increasing and increasing. Homelessness is a huge challenge in my electorate of Perth, but it's not just about numbers. For any one person who doesn't have somewhere to call home, it is a very personal crisis and a very personal tragedy. It's something we can do so much more about if we take this issue seriously. Housing is one of the biggest costs that households face. For most families, 29 per cent of gross income is spent on housing. That's slowly increasing over time; some 25 years ago, it was just 21.9 per cent. If we were to survey any of our constituents, I think people's expectations would be that they are going to be spending a larger, not smaller, proportion of their income on housing. I will go back to the challenge of homelessness. In Western Australia there are 13,953 applicants on the Western Australian public housing list, waiting for public housing. They might be in the private rental market paying excessive amounts or they might be staying with family and friends, but we know that a large number of those people on that housing waitlist are what we would term homeless. In the Perth CBD the estimate is that there are some 600 people sleeping rough in and around the CBD, night to night. That's completely unacceptable. I have written to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, given his actions with the Tasmanian government in terms of housing, saying that the need is probably more pressing in Western Australia than it is in Tasmania—on a per capita basis, it definitely is. As I said before: for any individual who doesn't have access to a home, it is a personal crisis and a personal tragedy. I would love to see the state government and the Commonwealth come to an agreement on the $343 million debt that the state government is unable to repay to the Commonwealth except on the Commonwealth's own terms, so that we can invest in more social housing in Western Australia. That would be consistent with the outcomes and the goals of this bill. It would also make sure that we have more money for things such as a Common Ground facility; I know that that has been a huge success in Queensland, and I know it's been a huge success in Melbourne. These are facilities that help people with that very difficult transition from homelessness to home. If you want people who are homeless to be able to access the National Rental Affordability Scheme, there's a step before that. We all know that that is a very complex transition from homelessness into secure, stable housing, and the first step of that is to have intense wraparound services as provided through the Common Ground model. I would love to see the government invest in one in Western Australia. The former Rudd-Gillard government invested in them across the country. Western Australia at the time was going through a spectacular boom. We did not take up that opportunity. I think in retrospect that was a mistake of the then state government, but now it is an urgent need, and I urge members on the government side to look at what they can do to make sure that we invest in housing in Western Australia. Labor is committed and will continue to be committed to investing in housing. We took a plan to the last election to make sure that we continued this discussion through COAG. I note that the government has, even on its own priorities of the environment and reducing plastics, decided to cancel COAG for the end of the year. We don't know when the next COAG meeting is. But I know that, had Labor been elected, homelessness would have been on the agenda and COAG would have been meeting. We had a plan to build an extra 250,000 new affordable rental homes over 10 years. That would have simply cleared the backlog; it wouldn't have got us further ahead. It would have just got us back to a point where there were almost enough homes for the people who need affordable housing. We had a commitment—which is something that I would again encourage the government to look at—for an $88 million investment in a safe housing fund to help women and children escaping domestic violence. I know, again, that in my electorate of Perth the services that provide that are constantly oversubscribed and have to move people out of their services, often before those families—those children and those women—are ready to move into a more normal tenancy arrangement. Anything that we can do in this place that would increase investment in those services and allow people to make that transition when they're escaping family violence is something that should be looked at by the government. Indeed, I think you'd find much support on this side of the House. Affordable housing is one part of addressing poverty. This week is Anti-Poverty Week, and these things are all interconnected. You can't have a National Rental Affordability Scheme without acknowledging the other causes and impacts of poverty. We know there are some three million Australians who live below the poverty line. Of those three million Australians, 739,000 are children. In fact, one in six children are estimated to live below the poverty line. We know that those on youth allowance are some of the most likely to experience poverty, as are those on Newstart. A report released earlier this week showed that as many in one in five Australians have experienced food insecurity in the last year—that is, skipping meals. Parents have said in this report that they will choose to not feed themselves so that they can feed their children. I know that the member for Blaxland earlier spoke about the work that Foodbank does. The fact that Foodbank expanded its program in New South Wales for another 500 schools is a sign that something is not working in this country and that things aren't as they should be. We also know that, when it comes to secure housing, people pay their rent first. The most tragic thing that can happen is for someone to have to go through an eviction. The ongoing cost of dealing with that crisis is serious. So, when rents go up, it reduces funding for food, health, schooling and all those other things. If we want to break the cycle of poverty in Australia, we have to be serious about investing in housing. I want to put in a broader context the need not just for this piece of legislation to go through but for more action on affordable housing, national action on affordable housing. I want to put it in the context of Australia's broader human rights obligations. Housing is a human right. It is one of the most complex to deliver on, because it's not just about a piece of legislation. It's not just about saying we shouldn't discriminate. It is about a big piece of coordinated government action to build houses and to provide the economic circumstances in which houses are affordable. The right to housing is enshrined not just in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is a human right. Some estimate that there are one billion people in the world who do not have adequate housing. In fact, the best estimate is that there are some 100 million people who you would consider are homeless by Australian and international definitions. Those numbers are hard to comprehend. There is lost economic potential in our community and our global family. Those 100 million homeless people are not making a serious contribution and are not able to make the sorts of decisions we in this place take for granted. Let's look at where we enshrine housing as a human right. We enshrine it as a human right in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. We include it in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child. We include it in the ILO conventions. We include it in the housing rights of Indigenous peoples. Housing is something we should take more action on. I do support the bill. 12:40 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley Over the past five months, since being elected, I have listened to countless Lilley constituents who are struggling to make ends meet as the cost of living continues to skyrocket. With stagnant wages, increasing rates of unstable employment, higher energy bills and growing housing stress, many Australians are looking to us for help to keep their heads above water. In 2008 the then Labor government introduced the National Rental Affordability Scheme, with the vision of constructing 50,000 new residential buildings to increase the supply of affordable rental dwellings and reduce rental costs for low- and middle-income households. The scheme attracted private investment of approximately $12.9 billion and delivered 37,000 affordable rental dwellings to Australians in need of a hand up. Labor welcome the amendment before us and recognise the need for improvements to protect tenants and investors participating in the NRAS. We also commend the government for agreeing to amend the National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019 to allow the departmental secretary to allocate new funding in the future. However, the government should hold off on patting themselves on the back for a job half done. There is a severe shortage of affordable housing in Australia and too many families are struggling to find and keep a roof over their heads. The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute has estimated that there is a shortfall of more than 525,000 affordable rental properties in Australia and an additional 727,000 social dwellings will need to be constructed over the next 20 years in order to meet our emerging needs. Despite this warning, the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments have axed and capped initiatives like the NRAS. Under this third-term government, the NRAS has not received any funding since the number of dwellings was capped back in 2014—that's five long years for these people. There have been five years and five budgets without funding, and there is no plan to resume funding in the future. This decision has been rightfully and widely criticised by housing sector stakeholders, including the Property Council of Australia, the Housing Industry Association, the Urban Development Institute, Homelessness Australia, National Shelter, Mission Australia, ACOSS, the Federation of Housing Associations, Anglicare and the St Vincent de Paul Society. Without further NRAS funding, 10,229 households in my home state of Queensland will be cut off from receiving NRAS support in the next six years, forcing private investors to sell their properties or increase their rent to the full market value, and slashing the supply of affordable rental housing. The Grattan Institute has found that rapid growth in house prices has lowered homeownership rates among younger and poorer households, has contributed to widening wealth inequality and has left the economy more vulnerable to economic shocks. With so many Australians locked out of homeownership, decreasing the supply of affordable housing will only widen inequality and increase the gap between rich and poor. Australians who rely on the NRAS for assistance—and they have been promised that, if they have a go, they will get a go—are currently at risk of being forced out of the private market and into social housing or, worse, homelessness. The short-sighted decision to stop the NRAS funding without any feasible substitute is just another example of this government's willingness to turn a blind eye to struggling Australians. A budget surplus means nothing to the 116,000 Australians who are worried about how to keep a roof over their head. In June 2019, 12.71 per cent of renters on the north side of Brisbane reported difficulty keeping up with their rent each week. This equates to approximately 56,513 people whose household budget has strained to pay their rent while keeping up with other basic necessities like food, utilities, child care and school expenses. More broadly, across Queensland, there are 190,000 households that are currently suffering rental stress, which means more than 30 per cent of their income is spent on housing. Low-income households, young people and pensioners are particularly at risk of falling into this toxic cycle of rental stress. We must increase the supply of affordable housing and reduce the unacceptable level of rental stress to prevent vulnerable Australians from entering poverty or continuing to be impoverished. ABS data shows that one in six young Australians aged between 15 and 24 are living in poverty and that the rate of homelessness of people aged between 19 and 24 increased by 22 per cent between 2017 and 2018. While the cause of poverty and homelessness is a complex issue, it must be noted that unemployment also significantly affects young people. Youth unemployment is at around double the national average and is as high as 25 per cent in regional Queensland. I recently met with a team from Youth Housing Project, which is a crisis accommodation program and specialist homelessness service on the north side of Brisbane. Alison Cole and her dedicated team see firsthand what happens when there are not enough affordable housing options for young people. I heard the stories of two young Brisbane mums who, for different reasons, had to reach out in desperation to the Youth Housing Project to keep a roof over their head. One mum was sharing a house with her child and a friend, and the friend moved out without notice. Although the young mum worked part-time, she couldn't find a rental property that she could afford on her own or one that a real-estate agency would approve her income for. The other young Brisbane mum had to reach out to the Youth Housing Project after experiencing the breakdown of a relationship through domestic violence. She was left to pay private rent on her own after her ex-partner moved out. This eventually became too much for her to bear on her own, and she ended up owing her landlord rent and finally getting a notice to leave. She then had to contact the Youth Housing Project, who helped her get back on her feet and into accommodation. Unfortunately this isn't an isolated or even rare experience, as women aged 25 to 34 with a child are the most likely demographic to seek homelessness services in Australia. Vulnerable Australians like this Brisbane mum who are facing the loss of NRAS support over the next six years will be forced onto the social housing waiting list, or they will become homeless. Homeless and emergency housing services, like the Youth Housing Project, will bear the brunt of the NRAS ending. But these services cannot afford to support a mass influx of those in need, as there are approximately 20,000 Queenslanders on the waiting list for social housing. With 15 per cent less being spent federally on housing and homelessness than was spent in 2013 and 2014, rental properties that are both affordable and available to women and children attempting to leave unsafe domestic situations are crucial and increasingly rare. Pensioners are also more likely to suffer because of a lack of affordable housing. Queensland pensioners who rent in the private market are at the greatest risk of living in poverty in comparison to other seniors. A single older person reliant on the pension survives on an annual income of approximately $24,000, and a couple survives on approximately $36,000. An income this low, without the ability to work, almost guarantees that pensioners will remain in poverty and be forced to trade off basic needs. Single women over 60 are particularly vulnerable, with 34 per cent of single women living in poverty by their 60th birthday. They deserve better. Australians deserve better than trying to keep their heads above water. Housing policy experts are unanimous that bridging the NRAS funding gap is essential to improving housing affordability and securing better housing outcomes for all Australians. Failure to address the growing need for affordable housing now will only result in economic, social and infrastructure challenges in our future. On behalf of my constituents in Lilley and the two women on the north side of Brisbane who I've spoken about today in particular, I call on the government to stop taking their victory lap, to look up, to listen, to hear the urgency of these needs and to do more to improve housing affordability and secure better housing outcomes for all hardworking Australians. 12:50 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I want to echo the words of the member for Lilley and again call on the government to do more. This bill, the National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019, goes to the National Rental Affordability Scheme, which was, of course, a Labor initiative. It was an idea that was brought in in 2008 by the Rudd government because the Rudd government understood that there is a spectrum of people in terms of housing affordability. On one end on the spectrum, you have people who can own their own home. Some people are lucky enough not to have much of a mortgage. It goes right through to people who are sleeping rough and don't have much at all. Of course, somewhere along that spectrum are people who face rental stress, economic stress, for their own home and their own family. The National Rental Affordability Scheme was about making sure more people could afford to live in their own home because, ideally, that's what we want. All Australians should have their own home, a safe place to come back to at the end of the day. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is a joint collaboration between state and federal governments. It provides incentives for private investors to lease properties to the NRAS, the National Rental Affordability Scheme, for tenants at 20 per cent below the value market rate. That 20 per cent was sometimes all it took to be able to maybe get your extra groceries, your food, your medicines or, as the member for Lilley rightly points out, your kids' footy shoes. It can be the difference, because, wherever along that spectrum you might be, sometimes just a small difference can make a huge impact. But as with many things that happened in the transition from the Labor government into the Abbott government—much like the NDIS—the National Rental Affordability Scheme is an example where the policy that was originally put forward by the Labor government was amended and cut by the Abbott government. While the original targets were 50,000, the Abbott government brought that down to 38,000. If that had been based on demand, that might have been a reasonable thing, but it wasn't. It was, like many things, a way of saving the government money. Like many things with the Abbott government, it targeted Australia's most vulnerable people—people who were in need of just a small amount of assistance to be able to afford their own home. At the last election, we in the Labor Party recognised that the problem of housing affordability is not going away. In fact, it's only getting worse. I've said it before in this place and I'll say it again now: we absolutely need to learn lessons from the last election. There were things that we didn't get right. But I don't think having a plan to ensure that Australians who need a home, wherever they are on the spectrum of housing affordability, can get a home was something that we got wrong. I think having a plan to ensure that people who need a home can get a home— The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW I wonder, given the messages that have just been received from the Senate, whether it would be helpful to the House for me to seek leave for the member speaking to continue his remarks at a later hour so that we can interrupt business. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the duty minister minded to deal with these matters now? Mr Taylor 231027 Yes, we are, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 00APG In which case, the member for Macnamara simply needs to seek leave to continue his remarks at a later hour. Mr BURNS 278522 Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later point. The SPEAKER 00APG There being no objection to leave being granted, that will be the course. Debate adjourned. Emergency Response Fund Bill 2019 35

Emergency Response Fund Bill 2019

Consideration of Senate Message 35 12:57 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I move: That the requested amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Emergency Response Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019 37

Emergency Response Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019

Returned from Senate 37 CONDOLENCES 37 CONDOLENCES Forbes, Hon. Dr Alexander James (Jim), CMG, MC 37 Report from Federation Chamber 37 12:58 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the honourable the Prime Minister be agreed to. Question agreed to. BILLS 37 BILLS National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019 37

National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019

Second Reading 37 12:59 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I thank the House for granting leave for me to continue my remarks on the National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill. As I was saying, there is a spectrum of people who face housing stress and housing affordability stress. On the one hand, there are people who have no issues with housing affordability and, on the other hand, there are other people who have no ability to pay for a home. This bill addresses those who require assistance to be able to access the private housing market at 20 per cent below the market rate. It is significant and it is an important policy—a Labor policy, one that was brought in because we understand that for people to be in their own home as part of the private market is good for industry. It's good for construction. It's good for those in the building industry. But, most importantly, it's good for families, for working parents and often single parents on one income, who face that rental stress. So we in the Labor Party recognised that people were on a spectrum of housing affordability, and that's why we came up with a plan. It wasn't about having a very targeted, one-year approach; it was about making sure that, over the next 10 years, we tackled this problem, because it's not going away. More and more Australians can't afford to buy their own home. Thirty years ago, as I said in my first speech in this place, six out of 10 people my age could own their own home. Now it's fewer than four and it's plummeting. The number of Australians, on our watch, able to achieve financial security is plummeting. We need to create pathways to financial security or to at least help people, especially young people who are entering the workforce, who are often on lower wages and often have young kids and high costs—as we know, childcare costs are not going down; they are going up on this government's watch—by having a long-term plan to address housing affordability. And that's what we took to the last election. It was not one tinkering with the edges but rather a 10-year plan, and that plan had building 250,000 homes at the core of it. It also included 15-year subsidies, $8½ thousand per year, to investors who built new houses on the condition that they rented them out at below the 20 per cent market rate, in line with the National Rental Affordability Scheme. We didn't just want the scheme to continue; we wanted there to be new stock. My electorate of Macnamara includes the many amazing social services in St Kilda that do an incredible job, on a shoestring budget, of looking after those people who for whatever reason are facing financial stress and facing rental or housing affordability stress and may require a new home or a safe place to sleep. That reason can be something as simple as having lost their job and not being able to find a new job. But, way too often, it's women with kids who need to leave their home quickly and find a new home, a safe place to go. A few weeks ago I went out with Launch Housing, a fantastic organisation, a hardworking organisation, in St Kilda to look at the stock—to look at where people are going when they are facing housing affordability stress or a crisis situation where they need to find a new home. It's amazing to see what's in your own neighbourhood when you actually have a look. I have to say some of the places are okay, especially places that women and children are going to on a short-term basis. It's certainly nothing flash and you would never choose to be there, but it's safe, it's clean and it's a place to go. But we spent about 35 seconds at a rooming house in St Kilda—I'm not going say which one—and it was not a place where I would want to spend much time. It was not a place where my friend from Launch Housing felt particularly comfortable. It was quite intimidating. And it was certainly not a place that I think it would be appropriate to send vulnerable people to, especially women over 55, who are increasingly a group of people in our society facing housing and rental affordability stress. It was very intimidating. I had a conversation with Launch Housing about what we need in order to address housing affordability in this country. The answer came back to me very quickly and very clearly: there is just not enough stock. There are not enough homes being built out there to house Australians—certainly not enough affordable homes. People then slide down that scale of housing affordability. While they may have been fortunate enough to be at the higher end at one stage, they slide down. Housing affordability is becoming less and less tenable for Australians. This bill is important because it does support an important scheme that the Labor Party supports, because it is our scheme—the National Rental Affordability Scheme—that we created in 2008 under Prime Minister Rudd. We understood that, wherever they are on that spectrum of housing affordability, sometimes a bit of help can make a huge difference to people's lives. However, I would absolutely say that the government should not think that the job is done after this bill has passed. The problem is not getting better. Australians are finding it harder and harder to own their own home. We can take this situation and, like many of the attitudes around the economy right now, simply say: 'We're doing a great job. Well done, government—tiptop! Let's all hit the watering hole.' Or we can actually do some work and realise that this is a serious societal problem in Australia that is not getting better. Housing affordability is not getting better. We don't need just one bill; we need a plan—a proper plan that's going to increase housing stock, that's going to support families, that's going to support single parents and that's going to support people in Australia who don't earn enough money because wages are flatlining. Housing has not become more affordable. We need a plan from the government. We took a plan to the last election, and we accept the result of that; it hurts, because policies like that would have made our country better. Now is the time for the government to do more and actually address housing affordability in this country. 13:07 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I, too, would like to make a contribution to this debate, and, in particular, support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Blaxland. As has just been said, the National Rental Affordability Scheme is certainly near and dear to the hearts of everybody on this side of politics. It was a Labor program that was embarked upon. It was ambitious. It was about doing the right thing, particularly for people who were increasingly being confronted with the prospect of homelessness. As such, I emphasise that, being a Labor program, we have every interest in seeing it succeed; therefore we will be supporting the passage of the National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019. But I ask those on the other side to have regard to the intent of the amendment—that is, to ensure that the National Rental Affordability Scheme continues to form a role in addressing homelessness in this country. The bill was examined by a parliamentary inquiry in the last parliament. As a consequence, changes were made—and, by the way, I congratulate the government for picking up many of the recommendations moved by Labor members on that matter. But what this bill will actually do—and I'm not sure whether those opposite appreciate this—is make it impossible for future governments to continue with the scheme, because it removes the power of the secretary to make any new allocations under the scheme. It will not grow. It will not continue to provide what is the very object of the scheme itself. That's why Jason Clare, the member for Blaxland, moved his amendment. The government should give consideration to looking at the ongoing operation of the scheme. The current government may not want to continue with the scheme, as it is determined to restrict any future development. But any of us representing electorates which are finding themselves in stress at the moment. Electorates like mine in which people living with disadvantage are overrepresented—and I dare say many of those opposite wouldn't have to look too hard to find disadvantage in their communities as well—will tell you that restricting the operation of this scheme will have deleterious consequences well into the future. Labor's original scheme provided 50,000 new affordable rental dwellings to be built. That was a pretty significant undertaking. But the Abbott government, in its 2014-15 budget, announced that the scheme would be capped at 38,000 dwellings—38,000 and no more. That wasn't a decision taken because homelessness had suddenly decreased; it was one of those budgetary decisions taken by the Abbott government, regardless of the electoral mandate he thought he had, to change what we do in this place—which, after all, is looking after people in need—into a budget line item. That decision was criticised by various stakeholders: the Property Council of Australia, Homelessness Australia, National Shelter, Mission Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Federation of Community Housing Associations, Anglicare and St Vincent de Paul. That's just to name a few. They all came out and criticised the government's decision to cap the scheme, because, particularly for Anglicare, St Vincent de Paul and Mission Australia, they are at the sharp end of looking after these people in need. They are the ones who see that we must do something. The decision that the Abbott government took was very, very short-sighted, and they failed to bridge the funding gap, which has now severely curtailed the supply of affordable rental housing in our communities. Housing policy experts are pretty well unanimous that bridging the funding gap is essential to improving housing affordability and securing better housing outcomes for Australians. We understand that. We understand that having affordable, secure and appropriate homes with reasonable access to services is essential to the financial and social wellbeing of our people. All Australians should have the right to secure, affordable and appropriate housing throughout their lives. You'd think, in a country like Australia, that would be a basic human right. For too many people housing pressures are getting worse, not better. Australia has a housing crisis. You see that on display in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne and no doubt in other capital cities around our country. But that doesn't mean to say that all of a sudden people are able to access social housing. As Associate Professor Lisa Woods from the University of Western Sydney succinctly put it, addressing the real and intergenerational effects of the failure to invest in people in respect of housing: We see there is a risk of inequality. A lot of people who are homeless have experienced childhood trauma. There are mental health issues. Many of them are victims of … sexual abuse. So they are complex cases. Those inequalities are deep rooted. And she's right. It's not just the battling low- and middle-class families that are feeling the brunt of this government's problems; it extends to all those areas where there are complex needs. I'd just ask other members here to reflect upon the vulnerable Australians in their own communities. What about those victims living with domestic violence or mental ill health, people who have no option but to seek refuge in crisis accommodation? An organisation I've spoken about many times in this place is Bonnie Support Services. They operate in my community, in Fowler. They do a fantastic job, particularly looking after women and children who are victims of domestic and family violence. Tracy Phillips of that organisation often tells me how desperate they are to find alternative accommodation for people, particularly in crisis situations. There is a lack of crisis accommodation across the board, and here's this organisation that's working in an area which has a very high proportion of domestic and family violence. They go shopping around, trying to find accommodation for these people, because they don't have access to sufficient available crisis accommodation. According to the 2016 census, homelessness in Australia increased by 13.7 per cent over the previous five-year period. That's approximately 116,000 Australians who experienced homelessness on any given night in this country. While homelessness and housing instability is a very real problem across the nation, can I just particularise it to my electorate of Fowler, where, as I indicated at the start of my contribution, there is an overrepresentation of people living in distress situations and trying very desperately to survive within a community. Regrettably, we have an overrepresentation of people living with disadvantage, and clearly a lot of it is associated with mental ill health, disabilities, unemployment, relationship breakdowns, substance abuse, gambling addiction or family and domestic violence. All these matters significantly contribute to the rental stress that has occurred in my community. In talking about rental stress, I note that a research paper prepared by the University of New South Wales, entitled Everybody's home, showed my electorate of Fowler being the area most impacted by rental stress. In other words, it's the area where it is most likely that more than a third of a person's income goes to paying the rent. When you consider that, in my electorate, the average household income—not the average income but the average household income—is just a little over $60,000, it surely shows the demographics that we are trying to represent and whose voice we are trying to make sure is heard in this place and not just papered over by the Abbott government's idea of capping access to affordable rental housing at 38,000, as they did, cutting it back from Labor's proposed 55,000. In real terms, it certainly has an impact on the community as a whole. We have so many people who just cannot afford to live beyond pay cheque to pay cheque. It's simply putting it that way. This impacts on those people who belong to very low-income families. If you look at how the Parliamentary Library would delineate areas such as that of my colleague in Werriwa or mine in Fowler, they will talk about these areas' industry as being largely light manufacture. The truth is that a lot of that light manufacture is already gone. Those blue-collar workers who were engaged in those industries are now out of work. We just had that debate earlier today about what happens to them. The truth is that a lot of these people are now on welfare, and they are highly unlikely, if they're aged 55 or over, to be able to secure another job. So, when we talk about access to affordable housing, these people should be front and centre in our minds. They didn't participate in the debate that said, 'Okay, we can go into a world trade competition, and whether your industry survives or not that's it.' They were just people who were going to work, day in and day out, and a lot of their incomes went on rent. They are now people living on welfare and still struggling to find somewhere safe and affordable to live. They are seriously impacted now because of the restrictions. Also, the objective of this government with the idea of affordable social housing is that the scheme will stop. There will be no more. We've got to be better than that. Any of us who have the honour of being elected to represent communities in this place must start thinking that this goes beyond base politics. This has to be something where we talk about making a difference for the better in the lives of people. And it's not just those of us on the Labor side of politics; we're talking about all those communities represented here—the whole 151 electorates in this place. We actually need to be doing more. To simply put a cap on this scheme is not going to help anybody. So I fully support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Blaxland. The government should have access to breathe life once more into this scheme. Not only will it provide affordable social housing for people in need; it will also have a significant impact in terms of driving construction and job generation within our respective communities. The impact of this will be long lasting. Quite frankly, one of the reasons we have the honour of being in this place is to make decisions that affect people's lives now and into the future. I urge those on the other side of politics, those on the other side of the chamber, to have regard for the fact that the bill, as it's currently proposed, will restrict the secretary of the department from making any further additions to dwellings under the National Rental Affordability Scheme—no construction of any more buildings. Please have regard to what has been proposed through the amendment and give these people who we have the honour of representing a chance to survive in life. 13:22 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to speak on the National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019. When the National Rental Affordability Scheme was introduced by the then Labor government back in 2008, the stated aim of the scheme was to provide financial incentives to increase the supply of affordable rental housing, to reduce the rental costs for low- to moderate-income households and to encourage large-scale investment and innovative delivery of affordable rental housing. The scheme seeks to achieve this by providing investors with 10-year contracts through both state and federal funding and by specifying rent for more vulnerable Australians to be provided at 20 per cent below the market rate. In South Australia, the impact has been significant. As at June 2019 there were 3,542 allocations under the scheme in South Australia. Considering that we have just seven per cent of the population and given that we have 10 per cent of the scheme, I think that's quite a commendable uptake. A practical example of the scheme, and one that I've worked in, was called HYPA Housing. For more than 20 years, HYPA Housing had just seven units, but because of the NRAS we were able to expand that program. Not only were we able to expand that program to 39 units but that small amount of money that we could get from NRAS meant that I was able to manage a social worker to support young people across all 39 units. I was also able to have a youth worker installed part time in the afternoons so that the young people, aged 17 to 25, who were in that transitional housing were supported to study and to learn living skills—cooking and financial support. It really was an excellent program at HYPA Housing. I urge every member of this place to go and visit the HYPA Housing properties. I'm sure that Service to Youth Council, SYC, would be very pleased to accommodate you. Importantly, the program was designed to move young people out of the homelessness circle and into the private market. It's about exiting homelessness for good, and that could only happen because of the NRAS program. With respect to this bill, we know that it's to amend the act to clarify certain provisions and specify that the objects of the NRAS Act are to be achieved by protecting tenants and investors, providing rights to investors and recognising state and territory contributions to the scheme. What I think is really important, and other members have touched upon this, is that initially the NRAS scheme was supposed to have 50,000 new rental properties across Australia at a cost of $623 million, but, unfortunately, in the 2014 budget—the budget that continues to haunt Australia—just 34,000 places were budgeted for, and it was capped at that. That budget also provided that the scheme would conclude in 2026. I don't think the government sees what's coming here. What's going to happen here, because we are not continuing to refresh and acquire new stock, is that at the end of the scheme we are going to have many people who own an NRAS property take that property and increase the rent by 20 per cent—or perhaps more, as they will no longer have a contract with government—or sell that property. We will greatly reduce the stock of affordable housing. In August this year I attended the Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island Housing roundtable, an event designed to assist the South Australian government to formulate a comprehensive housing strategy. The event brought together stakeholders from across the housing sector to discuss the issues that we are seeing at the coalface in our community. I might just say, with respect to my community, it is incredibly hard to find a private rental that is affordable if you are on a low fixed income; it is impossible if you are on Newstart or youth allowance. I would urge this government to plan for the future—because it has what is essentially a crisis ahead of it. If you think homelessness rates are high now, just give it a couple of years, when all of this stock will leave. We need to be encouraging mum-and-dad investors to be part of the social housing mix. While the scheme did have a few teething issues to sort out, I think it was a commendable scheme. It's not just about creating more government stock housing; it's about having the private sector involved in social housing. The government has a huge storm awaiting it if it does not address this issue soon. 13:27 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe This bill, the National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019, makes amendments to the National Rental Affordability Scheme 2008 to streamline and simplify the administration of the National Rental Affordability Scheme, known as NRAS, until it ceases operation in 2026. The amendments introduced in this bill clarify ambiguous provisions in the NRAS Act relating to the powers to make regulations and lay the foundation to strengthen and simplify the future operations and administration of the NRAS. The NRAS Act requires the NRAS Regulations to prescribe that the rent charged for an approved rental dwelling must be at least 20 per cent less than the market rent at all times during the year. The term 'at all times during the year' has been subject to conflicting interpretations over the years. The first amendment supports the correct interpretation of this provision, which is that each time rent is charged it has to be at least 20 per cent less than the market rent. The NRAS Act requires the NRAS Regulations to prescribe maximum vacancy periods for approved rental dwellings. The prescriptive nature of the current vacancy provisions has been amended to allow greater flexibility for the NRAS Regulations to prescribe permitted vacancy periods. This flexibility will assist the future administration of the NRAS, should changes be required to how the maximum vacancy periods are to operate. Two new provisions will be added to the NRAS Act to provide express legislative authority for the NRAS Regulations to vary conditions of allocation and to put it beyond doubt that conditions may be varied or imposed after an allocation has been made. These provisions will reduce the risk to the Commonwealth when varying— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 42 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Horder, Mrs Mary, OAM 42 13:30 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon As the House sits today, a funeral is occurring at All Saints Catholic Church in Liverpool. Mary Horder died last week, at the age of 98. Mary Horder joined the Labor Party in 1961, was elected to Fairfield City Council in 1971, returned to Fairfield council in 1977 and retired from Fairfield council in 1987. She was active in the Catholic Women's League, the National Trust and the Parramatta branch of Meals on Wheels, as well as the Parramatta library. Mary Horder was a legend in Fairfield. She was a servant of her community and of our party for many, many years. Although she retired from Fairfield council in 1987, which is one year before I joined the Labor Party, I knew her well and respected her service, and I remember her service to the people of Fairfield. Also, it is worth paying our respects to her family—her nine children, her 28 grandchildren and her 48 great-grandchildren—who are gathering at All Saints church in Liverpool today. Opposition members: Hear, hear! Mr BOWEN DZS And I'm glad the House joins me in paying my respects to Mary Horder and to her family. Service through council is, of course, a noble cause. It is not the highest profile part of politics, but it is the level of politics closest to the people. Mary Horder was particularly close to the people of Cabravale Ward and the people of Fairfield city. She served her community right up until near the very end. She still lived in my electorate, in Pemulwuy, at the end of her life. I know the members for Fowler and Blaxland join me in paying tribute to a life very well lived. Stirling Electorate: Safer Communities Fund 42 13:31 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling We often speak about the benefits of a multicultural society, and government's first priority is to protect its citizens. I'm proud to represent an ethnically diverse electorate, and I've demonstrated through my military service that I take community safety extremely seriously. I am therefore thrilled to announce that my electorate of Stirling will receive $1.5 million under the Safer Communities Fund, a grant that represents the intersection of multicultural tolerance and community safety. The Jewish community in my electorate will benefit in particular from this round, with Carmel School receiving $900,000, Maccabi WA receiving $100,000 and Dianella Shule receiving just over $95,000. The Hellenic community's St Andrew's Grammar School will also receive $450,000 for important safety upgrades. I think Assistant Minister Jason Wood for visiting Stirling to meet members of my community. I also want to acknowledge local leaders such as Savvas Papasavvas, Craig Monaghan, Debbie Silbert, Shula Lazar, Senator Dean Smith and Justine Sharbanee for their tireless advocacy. In fact, Justine literally shrieked with delight when told about the good news, because leaders like her know what this will mean on the ground. I am proud to continue fighting beside our local leaders for the ongoing safety of our community in Stirling. Dunkley Electorate: Seaford North Primary School 42 13:33 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley There is nothing more crucial to the future of our kids than a great education. Today I had the privilege and the joy of joining the students and teachers from Seaford North Primary School, part of my electorate, who are in Parliament House today to see our democracy in action. Seaford North Primary School is a terrific public school with excellent teachers and support staff, and some of the most intelligent, smartest kids I have ever met. Ms RYAN 249224 Oh, yeah! Ms MURPHY 133646 You should have heard the questions they asked me and the answers they gave me! Those children are so smart, and it was my absolute privilege to spend time today with Mackie, Declan, Navaeh, Bailey, Avi, Mia, Tessa, Ronan and Cooper. I'm going to have a second privilege today—meeting the rest of 5/6 Seaford North Primary School after I finish delivering this speech, and I can't wait to meet those children. These students told me that they care about recycling, they care about tackling climate change and they care about making sure that public schools have enough resources so they have great teachers, great support and great programs for their kids. So they are— Ms Ryan 249224 They're smart kids! Ms MURPHY 133646 thank you very much!—the smartest kids around, and the future is bright in their hands. This is a school that has gone from strength to strength with the support of the state member for Carrum, Sonya Kilkenny. I can't wait to continue to be the voice for public education, in this place, for this school and other schools in my electorate. New England Electorate: Tamworth 43 13:34 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I'm here today to say what an incredible week Tamworth has had. On Saturday, we opened the Northern Inland Centre of Sporting Excellence. This is a multimillion-dollar facility that works on the back of the AELEC equestrian facilities there. With a hockey field, a velodrome for bikes and the athletics field, it is an exceptional front door to Tamworth. On Sunday, the government announced it would invest half a billion dollars into the new water infrastructure at Dungowan Dam, something I've been fighting for—and you know it—for so long. We put $75 million on the table and we finally got there. This is an incredible addition to the extension to Chaffey Dam. If we hadn't got that, Tamworth would have run out of water. Now, with the instrument landing system that we invested in for Tamworth airport, we have now secured the Foreign Investment Review Board approval for Virgin Airlines to go forward with its flight training school, and CAE want to be in there as well. This will be one of the biggest flight training schools, if not the biggest, in the Southern Hemisphere and it will drag further jobs into Tamworth. We are building this city. We are making it better. We are making the investments and bringing in the jobs. This has been a truly outstanding week for the Peel Valley and for the city of Tamworth. Praeger, Emeritus Professor Cheryl Elisabeth, AM 43 13:36 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I rise to speak to congratulate Emeritus Professor Cheryl Praeger of the University of Western Australia on receiving the 2019 Prime Minister's Prize for Science. I think she has just arrived in the gallery—so hello to you, Professor Praeger. This honour recognises her extraordinary contribution to mathematics. It's not before time that Professor Praeger is recognised in this nation for the extraordinary work she has done around the world and especially at my own University of Western Australia. Her remarkable research and study in group theory, combinatorics and the study of symmetry has been an amazing thing and a record for her, for the nation and for mathematics around the world. She is an advocate for the beauty of mathematics. Professor Praeger has created algorithms used in the most powerful computer systems in the world, and her efforts have changed the way algebra is researched and taught. She is a trailblazer like no other. Her positions and awards over a 40-year career are often the first time a woman has held those positions or received those awards. I believe she was among the first female professors of maths in this country and the first female professor at UWA. I remember Fay Gale, the former vice-chancellor, telling me that she was the second professor who was a woman at the UWA. She was also the first woman to be awarded the Thomas Ranken Lyle Medal from the Australian Academy of Science and also the first mathematician to be named the Western Australia Scientist of the Year. I'm so glad you are here, Professor Praeger. I'm so glad you have won and I am so glad I met you in my former work at UWA. Congratulations. You are an asset to the nation. Illicit Drugs 43 13:37 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper Yesterday the coalition government brought into this House a bill to help young people on Newstart and youth allowance get off drugs and be job ready. I commend the Morrison-McCormack government for this initiative to help our youth and to offer them a better life for their future. But there are those who seek to enable drug usage, and that has never been more than today. On the front page of TheDaily Telegraph in my state of New South Wales, the New South Wales deputy state coroner, in draft recommendations in the report of the inquiry into the deaths of a number of young people at festivals, is supporting the legalisation of pill testing, while criticising or questioning the conduct of police in carrying out drug searches. What kind of message is that sending to our youth? 'Hey kids, drugs are illegal, but, if you get them into the festival, we will test them and you can take as many as you like.' What kind of message is that sending to our drug dealers? 'New South Wales is open for business; get the pill press out of the cupboards, boys.' When will people realise that pill testing doesn't work? It will tell you one thing—that there is ecstasy in there. And guess what? Ecstasy kills. One pill can kill. Fortunately, there is a very sensible Premier in New South Wales, Gladys Berejiklian, who won't have a bar of it. I commend her and I commend this government on their strong stance against illicit, dangerous drugs. Sayle, Mr Jeffrey Leonard, OAM 43 13:39 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Australia's rugby community lost a legend with the passing of Jeffrey Sayle. In Coogee last Friday, I joined thousands of people to say farewell to 'Sayley', the local legend everyone knew and loved. He played for Randwick rugby club, the Waratahs and the Wallabies and won an Australian surfboat title with the Coogee surf club. Most importantly, Jeff was a mentor to so many young sportspeople in our community. With over 60 years of service, he was the heart and soul of the Randwick rugby club. He could do everything at the club, and he gave everything—a larger than life character, full of passion and humour. Jeff was a 10-time premiership winner with the Galloping Greens, claiming four as a player and six as a coach. He also helped to nurture and develop emerging talent at the club with the likes of the Ella brothers, Simon Poidevin, David Campese, Michael Cheika and others who would go on to play for Australia in rugby. He was also instrumental in establishing the Randwick Rugby Junior Academy, which is providing support for so many junior rugby players in our community. Jeff was awarded the Centenary Medal in 2001 for services to rugby, and in 2006 he received the Order of Australia medal for services to the Randwick rugby club and the Coogee Surf Life Saving Club. On behalf of our community, I offer my deepest condolences to Jeff and his family. Vale Sayley. Osteoporosis 44 13:40 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins We take our bones for granted. Without strong bones we risk fractures. As someone who recently tripped and fractured my shoulder, requiring a painful insertion of a plate, I've spent the last four months wishing my bones had been stronger as I hit the pavement. Anyone who has a fracture from a standing fall, as I did, is at risk of osteoporosis, or brittle bones. I had a bone scan and I'm fortunate that I don't have osteoporosis, but I do have early signs of osteopenia, which is thinning bones. What can I do to make sure the early signs of thinning bones don't turn into dangerous osteoporosis? It's pretty easy really: a healthy diet packed with calcium and Vitamin D, which means lots of dairy and maybe a supplement; regular exercise, including some that's weight bearing; and checking in with my doctor, to make sure that he's keeping in charge of my bone scans. Incredibly, one in five Australians have poor bone health. In Australia osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and untreated. Eighty per cent of patients fail to receive appropriate treatment. Today we recognise World Osteoporosis Day, a day dedicated to raising global awareness of the prevention and management of osteoporosis. I'd like to say a huge thank you to Osteoporosis Australia's great ambassador, Ita Buttrose, who is in parliament here today. I know she's advocated for the strategic action plan on osteoporosis announced today by the Morrison government. I know she will be delighted that it will help strengthen our country's bones and prevent thousands of fractures from falls. Broadband 44 13:42 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I would like to thank the communications minister for inviting me to join him on a recent visit to Mayo to visit businesses using the NBN. We visited Gordon Kay who runs Hacksaw, a space for inventors to develop tech solutions in the Adelaide Hills Business Centre in Woodside. Gordon's dad had one of Australia's first computers in the 1960s. It was so big, it filled a bedroom. Thanks to fast broadband, Gordon's business hub has some 500 members and will be the media station during the next Tour Down Under. We also visited Andrew Baker in Bridgewater where he operates Data Effects and The Science of Things. Prior to the NBN, Andrew's internet was so bad that he doorknocked neighbours to ask if he could put antennas on their roofs. Now he's working on technologies to combat agricultural pests and diseases, including monitors to record the health of our River Murray. The NBN has been a lottery in Mayo, but I am working hard to assist individual constituents. I invite residents in Meadows and Mylor to book in to our up-and-coming NBN community forums, and I invite everyone on the south coast to attend our NBN scam watch forum in Victor Harbor. That's on 6 November. You can get more information on my website. I would like to again thank Gordon and Andrew for their time and fantastic businesses in Mayo. Terrain Natural Resource Management 44 13:43 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Terrain Natural Resource Management who were recently named in the AFR BOSS Most Innovative Companies list for its reef credits initiative. Terrain NRM is a small not-for-profit organisation working with more than 50 organisations and hundreds of individual land managers and farmers to ensure that natural resources across our regions are used sustainably. Their reef credits initiative is a world-first market approach to incentivise farm changes to benefit water quality flowing into the Great Barrier Reef. It is an ecosystem service market similar to carbon credits. It pays farmers to make practice changes that prevent pollution from fertilisers, pesticides and sediment flowing into the reef. Farmers' projects are audited and payment is based on actual achievements, and Terrain NRM expects the first reef credits to be exchanged by the end of this year. I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank Terrain NRM CEO, Carole Sweatman, the staff and their board for their fantastic work in protecting our natural environment. Finally, I'd also like to wish Carole, who is leaving Terrain after nine years at the helm, all the best for her future endeavours. It was an absolute pleasure to work alongside her during this time. Her dedication, leadership and experience will certainly be missed. World Osteoporosis Day 45 13:45 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur Like the member for Higgins, I rise today to take this opportunity to inform the House that World Osteoporosis Day will take place this Sunday. The day is dedicated to raising global awareness of the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis, a chronic illness and fragile bone disease that causes painful and debilitating fractures. World Osteoporosis Day aims to put osteoporosis and fracture prevention on the global health agenda by reaching out to policymakers, healthcare professionals and the community. The good news is that good bone health and prevention of osteoporosis is due to good health in general—good diet, plenty of exercise and making sure that we stay healthy. That means avoiding things like alcohol and tobacco smoking, and trying to live a healthy lifestyle. Fractures in later life can be quite debilitating. We know that almost 50 per cent of people over the age of 50 have a degree of osteoporosis, and that prevention of fractures can lead to much better lifestyles. Osteoporosis can be treated, and fractures can be prevented. Diagnosis and treatment can halve the risk of fractures in patients, and preventing costly broken bones is our collective responsibility. Osteoporosis is not simply part of the ageing process—it can be prevented. What we need is a significant shift in the levels of public awareness of the causes and consequences of osteoporosis. I commend the community and the House to remember osteoporosis, and I encourage all to take early preventative action. (Time expired) Moore Electorate: Infrastructure 45 13:46 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I'm pleased to announce that the City of Joondalup, in my electorate of Moore, will receive federal funding of $1,000,068 in the latest round of the Roads to Recovery Program. Local roads, such as Clontarf Street in Sorrento, Montebello Avenue in Heathridge, Laurel Street in Mullaloo, Spinnaker Drive in Ocean Reef, Grand Boulevard in Joondalup, Fairway Circle in Connolly and Quarry Ramble in Edgewater will be resurfaced; have kerbing and drainage improved; have access ramps installed; and traffic control measures implemented. Maintaining local roads and improving road safety in our neighbourhood streets is an important priority. I thank residents who have responded to my community surveys and nominated these local roads as requiring attention. I'm pleased to work proactively with Joondalup mayor, Albert Jacob, to regularly review the city's capital works program to identify federal funding requirements for priority local projects. I was pleased to receive notification from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development earlier this week that the funding was approved. Ratepayers in the City of Joondalup will be the beneficiaries of this federal Roads to Recovery subsidy, which helps reduce the pressure on household rates. Dobell Electorate: Wyong District Tennis Association 45 13:48 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell On Saturday 12 October, I joined the 100th birthday celebrations for Wyong tennis. As a kid, I grew up in Baker Park, Wyong. On Saturday mornings I rode my bike to the courts to play a few sets in the junior comp before heading across to play netball. My dad signed me up to play tennis for two reasons: so I could play a sport with my five brothers, and because he believed you could enjoy tennis at any age—and he did. Saturday tennis was a social event for the whole town, kicking off with juniors before lunch and finishing with mixed doubles in the afternoon. We have Les Warner to thank for the beginnings of the tennis club back in 1919, when he constructed two loam courts on his property, Baker Park. In 1947, the overgrown courts were restored and the Wyong District Tennis Association formed. In 1979, the courts moved to Rose Street to make way for the Baker Park Netball Courts. I was a Wyong shire councillor in 2009, when council took control of the courts. They are now managed by the Wyong District Tennis Association. The Wyong tennis club now has almost 1,000 playing members. The juniors are coached by Nathan Healy, who many of you would know was a former professional and coach to Lleyton Hewitt. Congratulations to Leoni Baldwin, president of the Wyong District Tennis Association, and to all involved in the celebrations. A special thank you to Mavis 'Tiny' Bailey, a club stalwart who is almost 100, and who did the honours and cut the birthday cake. I give a shout out to my big brother, Will, the 1990 Wyong District Tennis Association junior sportsman, who joined me for the celebrations, playing with a wooden racquet and wearing 1920s clothes. (Time expired) Glenelg Football Club 46 13:49 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I am once again proudly wearing the Glenelg Football Club colours in the House today to celebrate the Tigers winning their first premiership in 33 years on Sunday 22 September. This is when Glenelg defeated the Port Adelaide Magpies by 28 points in front of a huge crowd of 39,105 people at Adelaide Oval. My state colleague Stephen Patterson and I were there barracking for the Tigers, and we saw Glenelg's Matthew Snook take home the Jack Oatey Medal for best on ground. I want to acknowledge premiership-winning Coach Mark Stone, Captain Chris Curran and players Liam McBean, Jonty Scharenberg, Matthew Snook, Aaron Joseph, Brad Agnew, Luke Reynolds, Marlon Motlop, Darcy Bailey, Luke Partington, Andrew Bradley, Brad McCarthy, Joshua Scott, Corey Gregson, Jesse White, Vice-Captain Max Proud, Matthew Uebergang, Bradley Close, Michael Virgin, Will Gould and Carl Nicholson on their incredible efforts. Congratulations to all the players on their tremendous efforts and grand final win. They couldn't have done this without the leadership of president, Nick Chigwidden, incoming president, Peter Carey, the board and CEO Glenn Elliott, and they certainly couldn't have done this without the support of their sponsors, volunteers and fans. I hope next year we will be back at the West End Brewery to unveil the Glenelg colours on the chimney once again. I wish the Glenelg Football Club all the very best for the 2020 season ahead. Go, Tigers! Economy 46 13:51 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa The International Monetary Fund has downgraded Australia's economic growth. It has fallen a whole percentage point since 2018. But it seems that, despite the outlook and downgrade in Australia's economic future, all this government wants to do is continue cutting services and delaying election promises just to balance its own books. We're starting to see the truth. The truth is that this government has no plan. It has no plan to combat Australia's weakening economic position. It has no plan to deal with low wages and rising prices, and no plan to deliver the services it promised to the people of Australia. Instead, it's simply ripping funds from vital services like the NDIS in favour of sound bites and catchphrases. Electricity prices have skyrocketed with no plan for energy. Childcare prices are increasing because the government has no plan to make sure providers aren't taking parents for a ride. Wages are stagnating, and this government has no plan to ensure Australian workers can keep up with the cost of living. Meanwhile, the outlook is for a steep decline in economic growth. The warning bells are ringing, and this government is failing to act. Australia needs real economic leadership. We need an economic policy. It's time this government brought forward a budget update to fix their forecasts and properly outline an economic plan that supports the floundering economy and better safeguards Australians from global turbulence. Bago Road, NSW Nationals Centenary 46 13:52 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I recently joined with Port Macquarie-Hastings Mayor Peta Pinson to announce 2.8 kilometres worth of road improvements on Bago Road to connect the bustling regional economy of Wauchope and it's new industrial area to the Pacific Highway. I inspected the roadwork sites and announced a $1.27 million federal coalition government contribution towards the $2.6 million rebuild. Bago Road is a major arterial connector for commerce and the industrial area, and has one of the 10 biggest traffic volumes in the region. This upgrade builds on the first stage of the improvements, and it will allow freight to not go through the main CBD of Wauchope—an area that's growing at a rapid rate. I'd like to bring to the attention of the House that, on Saturday night, I joined over 450 people at the Sydney Cricket Ground to celebrate the centenary of the National Party in New South Wales. Not out after 100 years is a major achievement for any political organisation, and I was really pleased to see so many long-term supporters and members join in the celebrations of what is just the first of the centuries of life of the National Party. Continually underwritten, we have survived and delivered for the people of regional New South Wales and Australia. (Time expired) Anti-Poverty Week 46 13:54 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo This week is Anti-Poverty Week, but you wouldn't know it if you'd been watching parliamentary proceedings. Not one new anti-poverty measure has been announced by this government this week. There's been not one speech by a minister acknowledging that this week is here. And it's here for a reason: poverty in this country is growing. UnitingCare Australia released a report this week that talked about children living in poverty. In Australia one in six children are living in poverty on this government's watch, yet we haven't heard a single mention about or seen a single measure for how they're going to turn that figure around. In my own electorate, the report is damning and heartbreaking. In suburbs like California Gully and Eaglehawk, 50 per cent of the children are living in poverty; that's the poverty rate in some of the areas of my electorate, which is just like so many other regional electorates. All we've seen from this government is attack. They're attacking these children's families. When you attack people on benefits, you attack the children in those households. When you fail to turn around underemployment and when you fail to invest in jobs, you attack children in these households. The government, in the dying days of Anti-Poverty Week, should do something. Drop these nasty measures and address children in poverty. National Rugby League 47 13:56 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I entered the Central & North Burnett Times and South Burnett Times NRL footy tipping competition. With some great skill and a little luck—I don't know whether that's the right way around!—I came out on top. The prize was a trip for two to Sydney for the grand final. I gifted this prize to Gil and Michele Smith of Wondai. I spoke to them shortly after they returned, and they'd had a wonderful trip. They left Toowoomba on 5 October and headed for Sydney town. The party was made up of 48 people from the North and South Burnett, Darling Downs and surrounds. There was a legends dinner on Saturday night at the Rydges hotel, and the three legends in attendance were Steve Menzies from Manly, Brett Stewart from Manly and Braith Anasta from the Bulldogs. Gil and Michele were put up in the Hyatt Regency hotel. The game itself was fantastic. There were a few little refereeing problems, but overall it was a great game. Gil and Michele praised the staff and bus drivers for their great work in moving the people around. I'm glad that they had an amazing time. Morrison Government 47 13:57 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley We hear day after day from this government that the economy is strong and that everything is going very well, and that we should stop asking our difficult questions and stop being such Debbie Downers because everything is going well and everyone is very satisfied. We ask these difficult questions because we know that, on the ground, things are not going very well. In fact, there are more 'for lease' signs out in our high streets than since the GFC. The Courier Mail has today run a story with the headline, 'Nundah Village: it's the village of the damned as restaurants and cafes close down'. This is in my electorate of Lilley—and I don't know if you've seen Village of the Damned, but it doesn't end well! This is the result of six years of smug complacency from this government—a government that has never focused on the demand side of the economy. Where workers face insecure work and have stagnant wages, of course they're not going to spend money in their local businesses. They need all of the money that they can get to stay afloat. This is a government that takes better care of banks than of people, and we see that and hear that day after day. The government should be creating local jobs by bringing forward local infrastructure projects like the one at Beams Road, which isn't scheduled to receive a cent until 2026. How humiliating for the member for Petrie! In conclusion: I don't know why anyone goes to the effort of running for parliament to say what they can't do or what they shouldn't fight for. But we will fight for hardworking people, and we're going to get their backs. (Time expired) Rugby World Cup 2019 47 13:58 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar This weekend we face our most serious test as a nation, for, in Tokyo, we face our oldest foe—and I speak not of the cane toad but of the English rugby football team! Now of course, the English gave us cane toads, rabbits, lantana and our head of state—and I wonder who she'll be supporting this weekend. But they have done everything they possibly can to try and steal this game from us. They've hired not one but two Australian coaches, and it's fair to say that we don't want to win this game by the referees finally noticing their illegal scrummaging techniques. We are going to win because we bring to this game more vitality and more energy, and you can't buy passion—and that's what we have. So this weekend I encourage all members to wake up early, especially if you're from Perth, and look at the Wallabies, get behind Michael Cheika and Michael Hooper and get them to bring home the cup, back to Australia where it belongs. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 48 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time today, as he is meeting officials overseas and attending the G20 finance ministers meeting. I will answer Treasury questions on his behalf. The Attorney-General will answer questions on behalf of the Special Minister of State. The Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. I also inform the House that the Minister for Regional Services, Decentralisation and Local Government and the Assistant Trade and Investment Minister will also be absent from question time today, as he is representing the government at the Australia Fiji Business Forum. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 48 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister refused to debate the economy in this House. Will he today debate whether the IMF was wrong to downgrade Australia's economic growth forecast? 14:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook As I confirmed yesterday, the IMF downgraded those forecasts yesterday. Forecasts are regularly reviewed, whether they're by international bodies, the Reserve Bank or the Australian government, through the midyear budget update and, of course, at budget time. That is the normal process in terms of budget forecasts and other forecasts that are presented here and elsewhere. That is a matter of public record. We have made no commentary regarding the accuracy of others' forecasts, because the government provide forecasts of our own as part of the midyear budget process, and we'll be doing that at the end of the year in the normal course of events. Given that I've been asked about forecasts and economic data, I'm very pleased to report to the House today that employment increased by 14,000 jobs in the month of September. That was in line with the expectation of around 15,000 jobs. I can say that we are rapidly approaching 1½ million jobs since this government was first elected. I can also inform the House that, with this increase in jobs in the last month, jobs have increased every month for the last three years under this government. I'm advised that that is the longest run of consecutive monthly jobs growth ever. Since we came to government we have reduced the level of unemployment from 5.7 per cent to 5.2 per cent. We have also decreased the level of youth unemployment by a full percentage point over that period of time. This government is doing the work through patient, methodical, stable and disciplined economic policies, whether it is ensuring that Australians can keep more of what they earn or investing $100 billion in the infrastructure that the Australian economy needs to grow, investing in ensuring that we're putting the right skills programs in place to enable people in this country to get the skills they need for the jobs that are there or supporting business in the same way. We are reducing costs for business, including in the industrial relations area. I commend the minister for the work he is doing looking through all the things that are preventing people from getting jobs and unnecessarily costing the process of getting jobs, and I commend the assistant minister for the work he is doing in stripping away regulations that are costing this country investment. We are expanding our trade horizons—lifting the percentage of trade covered by agreements from 26 per cent to 70 per cent. Our economic plan—the calm, measured, stable and certain plan—just gets on with the job of delivering for Australians. The increase of almost 15,000 jobs—26,200 full-time jobs—bears that out. Morrison Government 48 14:04 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House why it is so important to have a stable and certain approach to government policy in order to deal with challenging issues? How does this compare with past approaches? 14:04 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Braddon for his question, because he knows that stability and certainty in economic policy delivers jobs. As I've just reminded the House, for three years jobs have increased every single month under this government and that is the longest run in consecutive monthly job increases that this country has ever seen. It is part of a pattern of this government in delivering stability, certainty and a measured approach to delivering the right outcomes for Australians. It has been that approach which has seen us restore the budget back to surplus this year from what we inherited as a deficit under the previous government. It has seen us restore order on our borders. It has seen us get trade deals done where they weren't happening before. It has seen us get our Kyoto targets for 2020 back on track, with a 1.1 billion tonne turnaround in our emissions reduction abatement to ensure we meet the Kyoto 2020 targets, which we will meet next year. It means that we're restoring the capability of our defence forces, getting it back to two per cent of GDP, which means when I talk to our allies and partners around the world with whom we share the burden and share the load I can say now, as the leader of this government, together with my predecessors who also contributed significantly to this task, that Australia carries its own weight when it comes to our defence heavy lifting. We have done that while also increasing hospital and school funding to record levels. This is in stark contrast to the policies of panic and crisis that we saw from the Labor Party when they were in government, with record deficits and a spend of $6 billion to $8 billion on overpriced school halls, $16 billion on border blowouts, $2 billion to implement a solar and insulation program and then $1 billion to fix it. Then, on top of that, they totally struck down the live cattle trade for Australian farmers overnight off the back of a TV program. And then, on top of that, they sent stimulus cheques to dead people and claimed that was a sound, rational economic policy. When it comes to stability and certainty, the Australian people know that they will find it with the Liberals and the Nationals, and they know a government that maintains that is never one to go into panic and crisis, which is what we see from the Labor Party. Economy 49 14:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Given that since May the Reserve Bank, the OECD and the International Monetary Fund have all downgraded Australia's growth forecasts for this year, will the Prime Minister agree to have a debate in this chamber today on the economy? 14:08 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I understand from my colleagues that the debate the opposition have actually listed for the MPI today isn't about the economy, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why they want one but they're not prepared to table one! But I'll tell you what our government are going to do. It's not about debating the economy; it's about implementing the policies that make our economy stronger—and that's what our government are doing. We will continue to implement those sound, carefully managed, disciplined, stable and certain policies that, as I have said today, have resulted in three years of consecutive increases in employment every single month, the longest run of jobs growth on a monthly basis this country has ever seen. So what we will do is not talk about it; we'll get on and do it. We were elected in May. We were elected to come into this place and ensure that Australians got to keep more of what they earned by lowering their taxes. The Labor Party sought to fight that at the election and they fought it tooth and nail. They didn't just fight it saying they didn't want to adopt our tax cuts; they fought it by saying they wanted $387 billion of higher taxes on the Australian people. I don't know whether that was just a mindless policy of the Labor Party, thinking that $387 billion of higher taxes wouldn't hurt the economy, particularly as we were facing the global conditions which we are all very familiar with. If that is the case then I think that speaks to their competence when it comes to framing economic policy. Or maybe they just hadn't noticed what was going on. That is a more generous view about why the Labor Party might say that, but what I know from the Labor Party is this: they will take any opportunity to argue for more reckless spending. The Australian people know this: when Labor spend more money, they take more money from the pockets of the Australian people. That's why Labor are never trusted with the budget, because people know they will always come after the budgets of Australians. Even now, even here at this question time, they are saying that we should be spending more money in a reckless way, in the same way they did when they were in government. Having not learned the lessons of their failures in government, they are saying that we should implement Labor's policies of panic and crisis. We will not. Budget 49 14:10 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House about how a budget surplus creates stability and certainty by increasing our economic resilience? Is the Prime Minister aware of the consequences of alternative approaches to the budget? 14:11 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Boothby for her question and for her support, along with all of those on this side of the House and those who have been part of this government since we were first elected six years ago. I thank them for their commitment, their discipline and their sound-mindedness in backing policies that have ensured that in this year we are bringing the budget back to surplus. A surplus is not an end in itself. A surplus is a means to an end. It is ensuring record spending on infrastructure in modern times and record spending on health and education, and is delivering tax relief to Australians. It is ensuring that we are building the budget again and have two per cent of our GDP being spent on our defence forces. We are doing all of those things, and at the same time we are bringing the budget back to surplus, a surplus that means Australians can have confidence that we can meet the uncertainties that are ahead. How long those uncertainties will be present no-one can really know, and that's why it's important that you have a government that knows how to be stable and certain, doesn't jump, doesn't lose its nerve and actually can maintain its discipline and not engage in the thoughtless, reckless, ill-considered policies that we saw from Labor when they were last in government and that Australians are still paying for today. We were able to bring the budget back into surplus by getting expenditure under control. Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Moreton is now warned. Mr MORRISON E3L We did it patiently and we did it year in and year out, and it's taken us six years to do that through that patience. It's been done through conservative budgeting, because there's a big difference. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L On this side of the House, when we have framed budgets, we have adopted conservative forecasts, particularly when it comes to issues of commodity prices. We revised our commodity price forecasts down, particularly for iron ore, which we revised down to $55 a tonne. When prices excelled way above that over that period of time, we maintained those conservative forecasts because we knew that you couldn't turn your budget into a speculator when it came to iron ore prices. That is in stark contrast to what the member for Rankin's old boss and mentor did when he locked in iron ore prices at $180 a tonne and then spent all the money that went with that fanciful revenue and drove the budget deeper and deeper into deficit. We all remember the mining tax. It didn't raise any money, but they still spent it anyway. When you're looking for stable and certain budget management, people don't look to the Labor Party. They've learned from experience. Economy 50 14:14 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that since 2002 only two Australian treasurers have presided over an unemployment rate that is higher than the OECD average? Will the Prime Minister agree to have a debate in this parliament on Australia's economy today, and will he admit that the only two treasurers who have had an unemployment rate that is higher than the OECD average are the current Treasurer and himself? 14:14 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'm interested in the jobs of Australians. That's what I'm interested in. The Leader of the Opposition is clearly only interested in his own job, because all he wants to do is have a talkfest in this place. I'm interested in the jobs of Australians and taking action to ensure Australians are in work. More and more Australians are in work, and more Australians are in work today as a share of the Australian population than at any other time in Australia's history. The Leader of the Opposition may think that this place and the chatter that goes on here is terribly important to him and his position, but I'm going to remain focused on those Australians who simply want us to get on with the job of ensuring that we're providing the stable, the calm and the responsible financial management which has brought the budget back into surplus. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker— Mr Morrison E3L On a spurious point of order, I am assuming. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Gorton, I need you to cease interjecting. You're literally yelling into my left ear. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 On relevance. There were two parts to the question. One part went to whether the current Treasurer and the current Prime Minister are the only two Australian treasurers who have presided over an unemployment rate higher than the OECD average. He hasn't mentioned that. And, the second is, if he's confident, let's have a debate about— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I'm just going to say to the Leader of the Opposition that, whilst there's additional tolerance extended to him and to the Prime Minister because of their positions, points of order are not going to be used to ask another question or to make a political statement. There were two parts to the question. The Prime Minister can address one or the other, or both. That's the way it works. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L The Leader of the Opposition may want to come into this place and throw a tantrum at question time over whether or not someone's going to agree to what he wants to do. He's entitled to do that, but the tantrums of the Leader of the Opposition in this place only reinforce the Labor Party's addiction to panic and crisis. They love panic. They love crisis. Even when circumstances don't bear out their argument, they seek to create them, because they will look for any excuse to put their hands in the pockets of the Australian people and to rapidly increase spending to a reckless level. I referred earlier to the catalogue of Labor Party failures in government when it came to policy. The reason they engaged in those failures is that they could never break their cycle of panic and crisis. They put in ill-considered measures. They didn't think them through. They just smashed them through and into the Australian community, and Australians have been paying for them ever since. At the last election, I said: if you vote Labor once, you pay for it for the next decade. It seems exactly the same thing is true under this Leader of the Opposition. He can throw as many tantrums as he likes. We'll just get on with the job of good government. Drought 51 14:18 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy My question is to Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management. Are you aware that, after the north's flooding cattle deaths, the PM came, listened and delivered two dams and $2,000 million? At the Drought Summit, in contrast, did you not say that the free market is not necessarily benevolent, that we must learn to live with it and accept climate change and that 'we cannot carry you forever'? Ideology—where is the survival plan? Isn't this the policy of the corporate elites, wanting you to buy up owner-operator Australia, and the city suits enriched by selling to foreigners? Have you stopped a single sale? Minister, who is the master that you serve? 14:19 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the honourable member for his question. I answer quite fairly and quite proudly that I serve the Australian people. I say that, with respect to foreign sales, he has directed the question to the wrong minister. That, I can inform him, is the responsibility of the Treasurer. Let me talk about a survival plan. With the north-west floods, Shane Stone, who is leading the recovery in that area, has done an amazing job in making sure that we have had a targeted approach not only in restocking, replanting and giving grants to get these farmers back on their feet after their whole income was wiped out in one event but also in agristarter loans—$5 million loans to help them restart. That's a survival plan. Let me tell you about a survival plan for the drought. This is about making sure that we understand our responsibilities. The states have clear responsibilities, clearly articulated. We unanimously agreed after the drought summit that the states would look after animal welfare, freight and fodder, and we would look after farmer welfare. We've proudly committed $7 billion in a three-pillar approach to drought. The first pillar is the here and now—making sure we give our farmers the dignity and the respect they deserve and put money in their pockets through the farm household allowance. In fact, over the life of the farm household allowance, farming families will get over $100,000 from Australian taxpayers to provide them with the dignity and respect they deserve. We are also providing rural financial counsellors to give them the environment to make the decisions they need. The second pillar, looking after the community, is about understanding that drought doesn't just hurt farmers; it also hurts communities and the small businesses that support the agricultural sector. The Drought Communities Program is giving a $1 million stimulus to these communities to let them build projects, using local tradies and local materials from the local hardware store. It is stimulating the economy and keeping it going. The third pillar is about the future. We are the first government to understand that we're going to tackle not only this drought but also future droughts with a future fund—a $5 billion future fund that will give a $100 million dividend every year in the good and bad times to help equip our farmers with the tools to prepare for the future. That's on top of the $500 million we already give in tax incentives every year for them to prepare, through farm management deposits and instant asset write-offs, and the water infrastructure that, you quite clearly articulated, we have committed to building for the first time. We are saying to the states, 'Take our hand.' It is now time to understand that the states have a responsibility. Our hand is out; we're not shirking our responsibility. We will go hand in hand with anyone who wants to take our hand. We believe in regional Australia and its future, and we believe in farmers. If we allow them to have the environment to undertake it, they will shine and regional and rural Australia will shine. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 52 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:22 The SPEAKER 00APG I'd like to inform the House that we have present in the front row of the Speaker's gallery this afternoon the former Prime Minister and foreign minister of Sweden, Mr Carl Bildt, accompanied by His Excellency the Australian Ambassador to Sweden. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you. I'd like to also welcome, in the row immediately behind, recipients of this year's Prime Minister's Prizes for Science. On behalf of the House, a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Infrastructure 52 14:23 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House why it's important for the Morrison-McCormack government to provide a stable and certain approach to the delivery of critical infrastructure, including through the $100 billion infrastructure pipeline, and is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:23 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Following on from the minister for drought in talking about working hand in hand with the state governments: that's what we do on this side. That's what we as Liberals and Nationals do. We want to work hand in hand with governments that want to work with us. Indeed, just yesterday, the Victorian parliament in their question time talked about the relationship that they have with us to build projects. I know the Prime Minister is going to meet with Premier Andrews very soon. That's what we want to do. We don't care what political persuasion they are. If there is a project that needs building, we want to get on and build it—just like we want to get on and help those drought-stricken farmers. In the member for Wide Bay's electorate, there is section D of the Bruce Highway. Section D runs from Cooroy to Curra. It's an integral link, particularly for freight, but it's also making sure that people get home sooner and safer. This section alone will almost double the current capacity of the highway between Woondum and Curra and will remove 53 intersections and nine sets of traffic lights. That's delivery. I know the member for Wide Bay has fought, campaigned and advocated hard for this project. In the construction phase, along with the considerable amount of money we're putting on the Bruce Highway, it's going to create jobs, it's going to create opportunities and it's going to increase freight supply chains. Bypassing Gympie will mean 50 per cent fewer trucks travelling through the centre of town, separating long-distance travellers from local traffic. This is how you transform the way people travel. We're getting on, with $100 billion over the next decade for investment in infrastructure. We're getting things done with the states, with any states that are willing to build dams with us, to build the Inland Rail or to make sure we get on and build the roads of the future. Building a better future—that's the Liberal and the Nationals way. I'm asked by the member for Wide Bay if there are any alternatives. We're spending $9.8 billion on infrastructure in this 12-month period, and we're working towards surplus. That's something that those opposite could only dream about. In the other place, Senator Claire Chandler wasn't even born the last time Labor produced a budget surplus. When you have budget surpluses, you can build more infrastructure. That's how it works. As any good businessperson knows, when you make more money than you spend, you can get on and you can build things. You can expend money on capital equipment. You can, as a government, build more infrastructure, and that's what we're doing. I know that the opposition leader, when he was the infrastructure minister in the Gillard and Rudd years, would have loved to have the sort of money that we're investing in infrastructure. I know he could only have dreamt of that. (Time expired) Economy 52 14:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Given wage growth is the lowest it's ever been, household debt is at record highs and consumer confidence is at a four-year low, why does the Prime Minister dismiss the role that this parliament has to play in debating the economic policy direction of the nation—or doesn't he have the confidence in his own position to be able to do so? 14:27 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook It's all about you, isn't it—through you, Mr Speaker. It's about the Australian people. We debate these matters in the parliament every day, as the measures that we— An opposition member: No, you don't. Mr MORRISON E3L Apparently, when we bring legislation into this parliament that deals with economic measures, they're not debated in this place. The Leader of the Opposition has been here long enough to know that this debating chamber deals with copious amounts of legislation, and there is ample time. Before the next election, there will be the opportunity for the types of things the Leader of the Opposition is speaking about. I have no doubt that will be the case, as it is on every other occasion. But it seems that the debate he needs to have is within his own party, because within his own party they've got the climate fight club going on over there, with umpteen different positions on climate change. And he's got his own problems when it comes to the distractions of the New South Wales branch, where I see compensation payments are measured in how many Aldi bags they're handing out. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. In the latter part of the Prime Minister's contribution, the material wasn't relevant to the question. The Prime Minister needs to contain himself to the subject matter of the question—which, to be fair, included three measures: wages growth, household debt and consumer confidence. But I think he can talk about the economy, because— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L I'm in this place every single day talking about the economy, and let me tell you this: when we came to government, the real wage growth through the year was 0.5 per cent and today it's 0.7 per cent. On household debt, I note the comments of the most recent RBA minutes: Despite the high level of household debt in Australia relative to other countries, the risks from household debt appeared to be mostly contained. … members noted that households continued to have large prepayments on their housing debt. In aggregate, mortgage prepayments were equal to two-and-a-half years of repayments. What we're doing on jobs and what we're doing in restoring the budget to surplus will ensure that we will be there not only to meet the needs of today but also to meet the needs of tomorrow, because we know how to keep our heads, to keep calm, and to ensure that we continue to lay out the policies which we know are having the impact that they need to have, particularly in relation to employment. Employment in this country is the beginning of everything. If someone has a job, that means they have an income. If they have an income, it means they have choice—and they will have choices on a much grander scale today than previously because of the policies that we've been putting in place. They extend to the record investment we are putting into education, ensuring every parent, regardless of where they live, will have the choice to send their children to the schools that they would like to. Equally, when it comes to medicines or hospitals or other measures, they are getting support through the budget that gives them those choices. Our government is a government that's about jobs. It is a government getting on with the job, and that's what our government will continue to do. National Security 53 14:31 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister outline to the House the importance of the Morrison government providing a stable and certain approach to border protection and to domestic national security, and is the minister aware of any alternative policy approaches? 14:31 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Why don't I start with the alternative policies? If you want an example of panic and mayhem, look no further than the Labor Party in government or in opposition. When it comes to national security and border protection, the Labor Party tear themselves apart week in, week out. At the moment, we're seeing a civil war play out on the Labor Party front benches. We know that Senator Keneally is making unilateral decisions which are completely at odds with the leadership of the Labor Party. But it was the same when they were in government. They lost control of our borders, they panicked, and we saw the resulting consequences. We know that when Labor lost control of our borders, 50,000 people came and they came on 800 boats but, tragically, 1,200 people drowned at sea. But, worse than that, the Labor Party today still has not learnt the lessons from those failed days. We know that, in addition to that cost, there was a $16 billion cost hitting the bottom line and it meant that there were consequences elsewhere. If Labor were spending $16 billion on border protection failures and on all of the mayhem, the panic and the chaos that was taking place during those days, where do you think they went to cut? They went to the national security portfolio, as you'd expect from Labor. They cut $128 million from the AFP. They cut $30 million from the Australian Crime Commission. They cut $27 million from AUSTRAC. They cut $735 million and 700 staff from the then Customs service. They cut $125 million from ASIO. This year, we on this side will provide more funding to ASIO than in any other year in the 70-year history of ASIO. We will do that because we can balance the budget. We in the coalition make responsible decisions, which means that we can pay for the essential services. It's apparent to all Australians today that the Labor Party still preside over a policy on border protection where they are split and divided, and it is not improving. This is the irony of Labor's leader. This Leader of the Opposition has stood up at conference after conference of the Labor Party and demanded that our Operation Sovereign Borders policy be dismantled. That's what he's promised, and he's now in the process of delivering on that promise. The Labor Party policy goes from bad to worse under this weak leader. Energy 54 14:34 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the absence of an energy policy is leaving people with higher electricity bills to the point where in a suburb like Corio one in 10 people have had their electricity cut off? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition knows the rules about props. Mr ALBANESE R36 In this poverty week, will the Prime Minister agree to have a debate on Australia's economy today? 14:35 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for his question. Of course, it was the coalition who updated hardship policies, made them uniform and ensured that those hardship policies were in place to ensure the most vulnerable in our community were getting a fair deal! That's just the beginning of what we've done to make sure that vulnerable Australians are getting a fair deal on energy. We saw at the beginning of July the default market offer was put in place. This is a cap on electricity prices, which affects, most of all, the most vulnerable Australians right across the National Electricity Market across the country. On top of that, we've put in place the reference price, which ensures that customers find it easier to make choices, comparable choices— Mr Marles interjecting— Dr Aly interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Corio and the member for Cowan. Mr TAYLOR 231027 apples for apples choices, so when they get offers coming from the various energy companies, those offers are absolutely comparable. On top of that, we are bringing more supply into the marketplace. We are seeing that with the Snowy 2.0 project—2,000 megawatts of capacity with 175 hours of storage. The cost of that storage is one-fiftieth of the cost of batteries. Indeed, if you were to build batteries the equivalent of what we're doing with Snowy 2.0, it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars! So what that project is doing is reducing volatility in the market and putting downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices. But we're unified on energy and climate policy on this side of the House. We're unified. The contrast over there is the member for Hindmarsh has asked for a ruthless and unsparing review of their energy and climate policies. Well, he got that review from the member for Hunter! He got that from the member for Hunter, but he didn't want it to be that ruthless and unsparing, because the member for Hunter went with our policies. Mr Morrison E3L Come on over! Mr TAYLOR 231027 Come on over, member for Hunter. Great call! The member for Hindmarsh refused to endorse it, even though he admits he had his backside delivered to him at the last election. He admitted it himself. Only this side of the parliament, only this side of the House, is for a fair deal on energy. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 54 14:37 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the House why it's important for the Morrison government to provide a stable and certain approach to investing in life-saving medicine and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:38 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Moncrieff, who comes to this place and who through her career has had a dozen years as a small business consultant not only leading her own business but assisting other small businesses to manage their businesses. In particular, one of the lessons that she learnt, taught and helped others with was the very simple proposition that you cannot spend more than you earn, because that will lead to consequences. That's equally true for nations as well as small businesses. We know this in particular in the area of health and medicines, because when that happened, following the previous government blowing all of its budgets, we saw in 2011 the then budget papers set out very, very clearly, 'Due to fiscal circumstances, the government will defer the listing of some new medicines until fiscal circumstances permit.' Mr Bowen interjecting— Mr HUNT 00AMV The consequence was that medicines for endometriosis, for IVF, for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, for asthma and for schizophrenia were deferred. Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon is now warned. Mr HUNT 00AMV Medicines for endometriosis and IVF, amongst other things, were deliberately deferred in defiance of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. By contrast, because of the stable environment on our watch, in our time, we've been able to list over 2,200 new and amended medicines. That includes Ibrance, a medicine recently listed for metastatic or inoperable breast cancer. Three thousand women will save up to $55,000 a year and, above all else, have a real sense of hope and possibility for their future. Mr Bowen DZS What about cystic fibrosis? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon has been warned. This is his final warning. Mr HUNT 00AMV Equally, another medicine is Bavencio. This was something that I was able to help launch with the Prime Minister. Bavencio is for treating metastatic merkel cell carcinoma. At the launch of this medicine, which will help 160 patients save $150,000 a year, we met Wayne Lieberman. Wayne's words were very clear on that day—and I confirm today that he is in fine health and is improving his fitness every day. Wayne said: 'Twelve months ago, I had a very short horizon to look forward to. It wasn't good. I went onto Bavencio and in three months the metastasised tumours throughout my body have all cleared.' He then went on to say, 'For every future patient being diagnosed with merkel cell carcinoma, they now have a future.' That is why the PBS matters, and that is why a strong, clear budget matters. Economy 55 14:41 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Given that yesterday the Treasurer falsely claimed that drought was the No. 1 call on the budget, will the Prime Minister agree to have a debate on Australia's economy, and, in particular, the plight of farmers today, based upon the facts? 14:41 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Leader of the Opposition seems quite insistent on this point but he obviously wasn't insistent this morning, because the matter of public importance which has been tabled today by the federal member for Barton does not mention the word 'economy' at all; the word 'economy' is not even in it. So, if he can't get his own side to agree about something, which is not uncommon at the moment; it's not uncommon at all— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Mr MORRISON E3L I know that the Labor Party's penchant is for panic and crisis, but, honestly, he has to try to resolve the panic and crisis that is going on within his own party on so many issues—for example, their response to climate, which they say is an emergency but we're not going to know their policy about it until the next election. In the meantime we're going to have the constant in-fighting between the member for Hunter and the member for Hindmarsh or the member for Sydney or any other members, or whether the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party is going to tear itself apart—riven not only by corruption but also, it seems today, by sexism as well. The leader of the Labor Party has plenty on his plate, so I will leave him to deal with that all on his own measure. Environment 55 14:43 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister outline to the House why it is important for the Morrison government to provide a stable and certain approach on the management and protection of our environment? Will the minister outline how this differs from past approaches? 14:43 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I thank the member for Wentworth for highlighting the importance of managing the economy so that we can manage and protect our natural world, the environment and the communities that it supports. Members in this place will be well aware of our government's policies and our key commitments: in the area of recycling, with a $167 million recycling investment plan; a $100 million environment restoration fund, supporting major projects across this country; our $50 million in world-leading environmental research, education and science—and I give a shout-out to the scientists in the gallery; and our 44 marine parks, in a network of marine parks second to none in the world. This morning I talked about the importance of adding a marine park in East Antarctica to generate the sorts of ecology and conservation values that this side of politics is well known for. Our leadership in the area of marine science is unprecedented. Ms Butler interjecting— Ms LEY 00AMN The member for Griffith is interjecting. She hasn't asked me a question yet. Sometimes she interjects. I know she's waiting for everyone squeezed up on the front bench over there to provide her with some policies. Labor has no policies on the environment. There is no alternative record. I have just run through all of the things we're doing and the Labor party is silent. So, unfortunately, member for Wentworth, I've had to go back, before your time in the parliament, and look at the Labor record on the environment. Many will remember, front and centre, the carbon tax—a financial burden on every single Australian; the home insulation scheme—electrified roofs, house fires; and the solar credits scheme—does anyone remember? That actually added to the cost of electricity, and it had to be removed in a hurry because prices were going up too much. There were green loans, green rewards and a green start program—the green start program stopped before it even started! There was the cash for clunkers—$2,000 when you take your old car to trade it in. But that stopped before it even started: there was no cash and there were no clunkers. I don't mean to trivialise it, but I have to make this clear: there are no policies coming forward today. There is no sound economic management from the Labor Party. What we are seeing and what we saw was a government—the Labor Party in office—lose control of the economy, and this was the result. Only the Morrison government can provide the stability and certainty that protects the Australian environment and the communities that depend on it. The Labor Party playbook, as we can see—tax, spend and interfere. Ms Kearney interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Cooper will leave under 92(a). The member for Cooper then left the chamber. Economy 56 14:46 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Former prime ministers John Howard, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull all facilitated parliamentary debate at this time in the parliament on important economic issues facing the nation. Does the Prime Minister have the confidence in his economic position to be able to swallow his pride, follow their example and agree to a debate on the state of the economy today? 14:47 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Every time, almost without exception, that I come to this dispatch box I talk about economic policies. The reason I do that, and the reason I did that at the last election, is because I know that the strong economy is absolutely essential to everything. It is ensuring that you have the right economic policies that provide the bedrock to create the budget that can guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on, and that's exactly what our government has been doing, in season and out. Despite what the global challenges are, we have continued to be able to build the strength and capability of our budget position but also of the Australian economy, which has seen now almost 1.5 million Australians get a job. That is the greatest argument when it comes to the economic policies of this government: that's almost 1.5 million Australians who have got a job. That's the great evidence of almost 1.5 million lives of Australians that have been transformed as a result of the policies of this government that has set the framework in an economy for people to go and invest and to take people on. Australians' lives are being changed because the Liberals and Nationals believe that strong economic management, that disciplined and stable and certain financial policies, are what actually, at the end of the day, guarantee our ability to reach record levels of hospital funding and record levels of education funding. And in the midst of what is a very severe drought we could again today confirm that those who would be coming off the farm household allowance will be given a $13,000 payment as a supplementary payment and just over $7,000—7½ thousand dollars—for individuals, to continue to support them. And we're able to do this within the constraints of the budget that is being brought back to surplus—because, as I remarked in this place sometime ago, the Leader of the Opposition wants to have debates; I'm getting on with things. But how can the Leader of the Opposition even have a debate when he can't tell us what his tax policy is, what his climate change policy is or what his policy is on any of these other critical issues that he fails to answer questions on on a daily basis? He hasn't got a policy agenda. The reason we have to talk about their record in government and their policy agenda from the last election is that they haven't had any policies since that time. So it is absolutely fair for the Australian people to hold them to their record on the policies they took to the last election, and they were condemned for those policies by the Australian people at that time. We will continue to deliver the policies that were confirmed at the last election—policies that, over the last six years, have created almost 1.5 million jobs for Australians. Agriculture 57 14:50 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture. Will the minister outline to the House why it is important for the Morrison-McCormack government to provide a stable and certain approach to supporting our agriculture export sector, and how does this approach differ from alternative methods? 14:50 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the member for Flynn for his question and also the people of Flynn for their significant contribution not just to the resource sector but also to the agricultural sector. They play an important part in one of our most important industries—one that has a great story. The story is: just add rain. It will rain, and when it rains our agricultural sector will recover, but part of the recovery will be the underpinning of our trade agreements, which will make sure that we not only recover but also grow the agricultural industry to $100 billion by 2030. We have to understand the importance of trade to the agricultural sector. We're a nation of 25 million people. We produce enough food for 75 million people. So, if we don't engage and trade with the world, we will oversupply our agricultural products, and that also has a significant impact on those regional communities that support our agricultural sector out there in the regions. That's why this government's been strong in achieving key trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea but also the TPP-11 agreement, which those opposite walked away from, saying: 'It's all too hard. Forget about it. The horse has bolted.' We rode that pony all the way to the finish line. We went all the way through, and we made sure that we gave farmers access to a $13 trillion marketplace. For the first time we have access to markets in South America. We've got agricultural counsellors getting us market access commodity by commodity for our farmers in new markets, opening up opportunities. This is the enormous opportunity that we provide in opening up trade to our farmers, to allow them to trade with the world. Now we're also looking to finalise an agreement with Indonesia. This is a monumental achievement considering where our relationship has come from, from the lowest point in 2011, when a panic-stricken government overnight stopped the live trade of cattle to Indonesia, shattering our trade agreements with Indonesia and our trust and reliability with one of our nearest neighbours. The same happened with live sheep exports. Predicating their decision on one television show, they wanted to ban live sheep exports. We took a calm, methodical approach to reform the industry, to make sure that the industry had trust and confidence not just from the Australian people but also from our trading partners. That is what leadership is in trying times. That's what our farmers want. That's what our world trading partners want. They want trust and reliability. They want to know that they have a trading partner that they can rely on in the good and the bad times. Economy 57 14:53 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in the parliament, the Prime Minister shut down a proposed debate on the economy and organised an additional question to himself so that only he could talk about the economy. Is that because the Prime Minister only wants to listen to himself? Will the Prime Minister agree to a debate on the economy today, or doesn't he have the confidence in his own economic management? 14:54 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook When the Labor Party can confirm what their actual policies are, maybe that's when they might want to start asking those questions. Pensions and Benefits 57 14:54 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Families and Social Services. Will the minister outline to the House why it's important for the Morrison government to provide a stable and certain approach to the provision of social services income support payments? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies? 14:54 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I do thank the member for Berowra, who, like everybody on this side of the House, recognises the importance of a stable and certain approach when it comes to social services. Of course, he knows that every dollar that is paid in income support payments has to come from the money raised from taxpayers. We need to have a sustainable system of funding our social services payments. Social services and welfare will be $180 billion this year—that's over one-third of the entire Commonwealth budget. If you lose control of spending on social services and welfare, you lose control of the entire budget. The member for Berowra knows that it so important that we have a clear plan and we execute methodically that plan for people who need support. Our plan is to grow the economy, to grow jobs and to move people from welfare to work. That plan is succeeding. There were 230,000 fewer working-age Australians on income support payments as at June 2018, compared to four years earlier. I was asked if there is an alternative policy, and there is. There's the approach we saw from the previous Labor government of paying lip-service to fiscal prudence but starting to panic and spend without restraint at the first opportunity. We all remember the 2007 ad featuring Kevin Rudd. 'People have described me as an economic conservative. It's a badge I wear with pride,' said Kevin Rudd. Come early 2009 he couldn't wait to rip that badge off. He ripped that badge off very quickly when it came to the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. There were $950 one-off cash payments to eligible families and, of course, to people who were dead. There were $950 cash payments to people who were dead. Paying $950 cheques to people who are dead requires a whole new faith in the capacity of government stimulus. Cheques went to 27,000 people who no longer lived in Australia. That is a different approach—where you completely lose control of the budget, where you end up accumulating $191 billion of budget deficits over five years—from the previous Labor government. That's a different approach, and it's in very stark contrast to the stability and certainty that our government is delivering. MOTIONS 58 MOTIONS Economy 58 14:57 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the House immediately debating the state of the Australian economy, with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period of up to 10 minutes each and four other Members speaking for a period of up to 5 minutes each. What we see in this chamber is a government that is arrogant, a government that's not prepared to debate the economy— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the House. 14:58 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the Leader of the Opposition be no further heard.

The House divided. [15:02]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 68 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Buchholz, S Chester, D Coleman, DB Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Marino, NB Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 66 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Giles, AJ Gorman, P Haines, H Husic, EN Jones, SP Katter, RC Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Payne, AE Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Thwaites, KL Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:05 The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition seconded? The Leader of the House? Mr Porter 208884 The Leader of the Opposition gave a short summary of part of question time yesterday, then he put a proposal to the Prime Minister, then he went off on a tangent, then he was the subject— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides! I can't hear this point of order. I have to call for a seconder for the motion— Mr Porter interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left, I'll decide who stands up, sits down and gets ejected okay. That sort of works. Mr Porter 208884 I'd seek your clarification— The SPEAKER 00APG Hang on; you don't have the call at the moment. I'm going to call the Leader of the House but I'm going to point out to him that the standing orders require that I ask for a seconder immediately. The Leader of the House, briefly? Mr Porter 208884 It doesn't appear that there is actually a motion before the House. Mr Albanese R36 Yes, there is: to suspend standing orders. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Are you saying you don't have a copy of the motion? Mr Porter 208884 Mr Speaker, there was a summary of question time yesterday, there was a proposal which he sought agreement from us on, he then went off on a tangent and he was then closed, but there was no actual motion before the chair. The SPEAKER 00APG I'll just ask the Manager of Opposition Business to resume his seat. I'm not quite sure of the point the Leader of the House is trying to make. I heard the motion. The motion, I can verify, has been signed and, it's been seconded. I'm not quite sure about the point the Leader of the House is trying to make. Does the Manager of Opposition Business want to read it again? In all practicality—whether it's a technical point you're trying to make—I didn't hear anything that was wrong with the motion but, even if there was, that would just mean another motion would be moved immediately. But I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW The Leader of the House is right that there's not currently a motion before the House, because it hasn't yet been seconded. The SPEAKER 00APG That's right. That is exactly why it needs to be seconded before it's in possession of the House. Mr Burke DYW Once it's seconded then it will be before the House. At the moment it's been moved, and you've called for a seconder. The motion is what the Leader of the Opposition moved. He stood up and moved: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the House immediately debating the state of the Australian economy, with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period of up to 10 minutes each and four other Members speaking for a period of up to 5 minutes each. That's what he moved, and if it's seconded it will then be a motion before the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Member for Rankin, just relax. You'll get there. How long you'll get there for I'm not so sure, but you'll get there! Just for the clarity of members—maybe this is where some of the confusion lies—the Leader of the Opposition didn't seek leave to move a motion; he simply moved that standing orders be suspended and be suspended for the purposes outlined in the motion. The standing orders do make clear that I need to call for a seconder. Once the motion has been seconded and that has been dealt with, I'm then in a position to state the question. Until I actually state the question to the House, the motion isn't before the House. I'm going to now just call for a seconder. The member for Rankin was seeking the call before. 15:09 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Seconded. Today they run from a debate on the economy. They are ashamed— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin can resume the seat. The Leader of the House? Mr Porter 208884 I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member for Rankin be no further heard.

The House divided. [15:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 69 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Buchholz, S Chester, D Coleman, DB Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Marino, NB Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 65 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Giles, AJ Gorman, P Haines, H Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Payne, AE Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Thwaites, KL Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:16 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to. 15:16 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio This government is asleep at the wheel. They are running away— 15:16 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion be put.

The House divided [15:17]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 69 AYES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Buchholz, S Chester, D Coleman, DB Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Marino, NB Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 65 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Giles, AJ Gorman, P Haines, H Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Payne, AE Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Steggall, Z Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Thwaites, KL Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:20 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.

The House divided. [15:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 61 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Burke, AS Burney, LJ Burns, J Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Coker, EA Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Giles, AJ Gorman, P Husic, EN Jones, SP Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Mulino, D Murphy, PJ Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, JA Payne, AE Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Thwaites, KL Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wells, AS Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 69 NOES Alexander, JG Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Buchholz, S Chester, D Coleman, DB Conaghan, PJ Connelly, V Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, JG Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hammond, CM Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Katter, RC Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Liu, G Marino, NB Martin, FB McCormack, MF McIntosh, MI McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharma, DN Simmonds, J Stevens, J Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Thompson, P Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Webster, AE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Young, T Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 64 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths 64 15:25 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister advise the House how the outstanding work of Australian scientists and research innovators is being recognised by the Morrison government. 15:25 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for her question. I know that she is a passionate supporter of science, of research and of innovation and education. Last night we had the opportunity to recognise the outstanding talent that we have in this country in science, in research, in innovation and in science teaching at the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science. Many of those who were recognised last night were here in the gallery earlier in question time today. I don't, unfortunately, now have the opportunity to acknowledge every single one of them but I would like to recognise Prime Minister's Prizes for Science awardee Professor Cheryl Praeger AM, from the University of Western Australia. Professor Praeger has had an extraordinarily distinguished career in applied and pure mathematics. She is internationally acclaimed and much of her work are things that we now deal with each and every day, from secure banking through to accurate internet searches. The science and mathematics that she has done are used, as I say, not only by all of us but by industry as well, and her work is an excellent example of industry and researchers collaborating. This government is committed to making sure that we build our strengths with science and research collaboration, because we know that when industry and science collaborate it is much better for industry. They do grow, they do innovate, they are able to maximise profitability, they're able to build our economy and they're able to create more jobs. So we are committed to making sure that we are building the connections between science and industry. Those in this House would know how passionate I am about STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—and about making sure that we get more women into the STEM disciplines, so I was especially encouraged to see that last night we had record numbers of women winners being recognised in the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science. In fact, five of the 10 recipients were women, which is an outstanding achievement—and that includes the top prize. They were all selected on merit. They were all outstanding recipients of the Prime Minister's prizes. I would like to recognise the outstanding achievements of our science teachers. They are so important in encouraging our young people to develop a lifelong love of science, which sets them up for great futures because 75 per cent of the jobs of the future will require STEM skills. Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 65 DOCUMENTS Presentation 65 15:29 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce 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 65 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy 65 15:29 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Barton proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure to address disadvantage and ensure a fair go for all Australians. 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— 15:29 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton This week is Anti-Poverty Week—and I’ll just let the other side know that it does have something to do with the economy. Three million, or over one in eight, Australians live below the poverty line. More than one in six Australian children, or three-quarters of a million, live in poverty—a devastating and damning statistic. The Anglicare Jobs Availability Snapshot 2019 demonstrated that there aren't enough jobs for the number of jobseekers; employers receive on average 19 applications per vacancy advertised; and those that do have a job aren't receiving enough hours, with over 1.1 million Australians underemployed. Poverty has real-world consequences for real people—people who we represent. The government appears to have its head buried in the sand. It stubbornly refuses to acknowledge that we have a serious problem facing this country, and it's widespread poverty—and it's getting worse. It is especially obvious in rural and remote Australia. I have seen these things up close. I don't see a plan from those opposite to create jobs or alleviate poverty. There is no economic strategy. Children should all have a good start in life, but, as I said, there are three-quarters of a million children in Australia who don't. These children grow up in shocking circumstances. They grow up deprived of a fair start in life. They grow up living in poverty. Children are the biggest group within the poverty sector. It is almost inconceivable for Australians to understand this, but it is true: children make up the biggest cohort in the poverty sector. For children, living in poverty can mean going to bed on an empty stomach. It can mean not having a safe and secure home to live and sleep in. It can mean going to school with not only the pain of hunger but also the shame among their peers that they are missing out—or they don't go to school at all. They don't get to go on school excursions or participate in team sports or spend time with friends, leaving them lonely and isolated. They are missing out on healthy food, physical activity and interacting with people their own age, which are all critical to a child's development—the first five years of a child's life being the most important. Children living in poverty can experience severe physical and health complications. Living in poverty can create emotional scars that last a lifetime. This will impact on their concentration in the classroom, their homework and, ultimately, completing their education. They are experiencing anxieties that they should not have to deal with and which will remain with them for a lifetime. Children in poverty are not only anxious for themselves; they worry for their families, they worry for their mums and dads and they worry for their brothers and sisters. For families living in poverty, parents are struggling to get to the end of their pay cheque, if they even have a pay cheque. Parents are skipping one and two meals each week. Sometimes they are going a whole day without food. They are delaying buying medicine or going to the dentist. They are driving their children to school without a licence or a registered car because they cannot afford to pay for these things. They are forgoing new shoes, a haircut or clothes for a job interview. They do their best to shield their children from these realities, with mums assuring their kids, 'Don't worry; I ate while I was cooking,' or sitting on the back step trying to work out what bill to pay next and how on earth they are going to do it. No parent should ever have to do this. It is not always possible to shield children from these realities, but parents try. The impact of poverty, especially on young children, can have a profound and lasting impact on their outlook on life as well as their quality-of-life outcomes. We know that poverty and the cycle of poverty can transcend generations. Poverty snuffs out potential. Poverty means you can't imagine a future. Just think about that: not being able to imagine a future. When our citizens are deprived of the opportunity to reach their full potential, our workforce is deprived, our economy is deprived and we as a country are diminished. When our children are deprived, our country's future is diminished. So, whether you live above or below the poverty line, poverty and its impacts affect us all. When a person cannot afford clothes for a job interview or transport costs to get there, they cannot re-enter the workforce and contribute to the economy. When they have to choose between a bus fare to get to a job interview and medication from the chemist, they cannot properly participate in society. When people cannot afford the basics and essentials, our local businesses have less to spend on wages and jobs, and, when businesses have less to spend on wages and jobs, people have less to spend on local businesses. Yes, Minister, it does affect the economy. All Australians feel the impact or effects of poverty in one form or another. They feel it in their stagnant wages. They feel it in their lack of job security. Poverty is a collective challenge, and addressing poverty is a collective responsibility. It requires leadership, something this government seems to lack and seems to shirk when it comes to the economy. We have not heard one word from any of them about Anti-Poverty Week this week. It is shameful. When Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke committed our country to eliminating child poverty, we may not have eliminated it completely—I see the snigger from the minister, but listen to the next fact—but let us never forget the huge strides we made as a country. We reduced child poverty by 30 per cent. The Hawke Labor government demonstrated to us the power and capacity of government to lead and enact real change so long as it is prepared to demonstrate real leadership—nothing like what we're seeing now. It was a different time with a different government under a different leadership. This government refuses to even acknowledge the critical socio-economic challenges threatening the Australian way of life, let alone lift a finger to do something about it. Meanwhile, Australia waits, waits and waits. The government has got plenty of old, stale ideas. It's got nothing more than distractions and wedges. It is so obsessed with devising new and humiliating ways to harass and prod vulnerable Australians with urine testing and cashless cards, but it does nothing about alleviating poverty. It just doesn't have any ideas to create jobs or get the economy moving. Is this what Australians can expect over the next three years? Australians simply want this government to do something. Over the past five years, under the Liberals and Nationals, the proportion of Australians over 55 relying on Newstart has surged to a staggering 45 per cent. We know that Australians over the age of 55 have particular difficulty re-entering the workforce. They face structural barriers, and often they need a bit more time to retrain and reskill so they can get back into the workforce. They also face significant workplace age discrimination. These are people who have worked hard and contributed all their lives but have been made redundant. These are people who have spent years as carers but have seen changes in personal circumstances such as loved ones being moved into a home. They too will require a bit more time to retrain and prepare themselves to re-enter the workforce. The government's refusal to increase Newstart seems to be detached from reality. Newstart is the way to lift children out of poverty. With over 1.1 million Australians underemployed, we know many of those who have a job still have to depend on Newstart. Australians are doing it tough, Minister. Many have not seen a pay rise in a very long time. Many only see the cost of living creeping over their pay cheque, with less and less left over for them or their children. Why isn't there a plan to alleviate poverty? Why isn't there a plan to address disadvantage? As I said at the beginning of my matter of public importance, three-quarters of a million children face uncertain futures. It's untenable, and it's the responsibility of government to take it seriously and give it the credence that it needs. When our children are deprived, the future of our country is diminished. It's cruel. It's demeaning. It's unacceptable. Children should not have to carry this burden, and the government needs to do more about getting the economy moving, having a plan to address jobs and, most importantly, addressing the issue of poverty, particularly when it comes to children. 15:39 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate about how we address disadvantage. I want to start by agreeing, very much, with the proposition that the shadow minister has just put, which is that there is a strong link between the economy and how we address disadvantage. In fact, the data is very clear: there's a strong link between unemployment and poverty, and the best way that we can move people out of poverty is to get them into a job. And the best way to get as many people into a job as possible is to have a strong and growing economy which is generating jobs. My source for the proposition that there is a strong link between employment and moving people out of poverty is a recent report from ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Service, and UNSW in Sydney, Poverty in Australia 2018, which points out that only seven per cent of households whose main source of income are wages are meeting the test of poverty set out in the report. I hasten to add that the test of poverty used in that report is a relative income, or relative poverty, test rather than an absolute one. But I think we can all agree on the proposition that the more people we can get into employment, the more we can move people out of poverty. Every Australian who moves from welfare to work experiences a personal victory, but our nation is also better off the more people are able to move from welfare to work. That is why our Liberal-National government has had a relentless focus on a strong economy which generates jobs. That's why we've focused on lowering taxes for small and medium businesses, those with turnovers up to $50 million: around nine in 10 jobs are private sector jobs. If we reduce the tax burden on businesses, we make it easier for them to employ people. That's why we've entered into free trade agreements with China, Japan, Korea and Singapore and why we joined the TPP-11. It's about generating new export opportunities for Australian businesses. It's about generating jobs. It's why we're investing $100 billion in infrastructure around Australia: infrastructure projects generate jobs. The plan is working. Since we came to government in 2013, the strengthening economy has generated more than 1.4 million jobs. As we see more people getting jobs, we see a fall in the number of working-age Australians on welfare. In fact, as at June 2018, the number of working-age Australians on income support payments was 230,000 fewer than in June 2014. That is progress to celebrate. Of course there is more to do, but we are seeing our plan working and, as a consequence, the share of working Australians on income support payments has fallen to 14.3 per cent, the lowest rate of welfare dependency in 30 years. I make the point that these outcomes are of particular importance for vulnerable Australians, because, as we get more vulnerable Australians into work, that has particular benefits for those at the lowest end of the income distribution. The statistics are noteworthy. Between 1988-89 and 2015-16, that group, those at the lowest end of income distribution, has experienced much stronger growth in labour income than elsewhere in the distribution. In turn, what that reflects is a substantial increase in the proportion of those at the lower end of the income distribution engaging in paid work. Over that same period, it's risen from 29 per cent to 44 per cent. Of course, the link between a strong economy and supporting our most vulnerable—responding in the best way to those in disadvantage—is relevant because it's so important that we can fund the social welfare safety net. Spending on social security and welfare, at $180 billion, is more than one-third of the entire Commonwealth budget in 2019-20. When our spending on social welfare is such a large part of the Commonwealth's budget, it is critically important that our spending is sustainable. We make a promise to Australians that, if they have particular needs, they will be supported with a particular benefit, be it the age pension for those over 65½ who meet the income and assets test; be it Newstart for those of working age who are unemployed; or be it the disability support pension for those suffering from a permanent disability that stops them from working. If we make that promise, it is so important that we keep it. We never want to run the risk that we do not have the money to pay for the benefits that we promise. Yet this was the risk that the previous Labor government ran. Under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, social security and welfare spending grew at around twice the rate of revenue growth—6.2 per cent a year, compared with total tax receipt growth of 3.3 per cent a year. That was unsustainable. We ran the risk of not being able to meet the promises we had made to vulnerable Australians. Thankfully, we've worked hard to turn that position around since we came to government in 2013 and it is now the case that expenditure on social security and welfare is growing at a sustainable rate—and it is growing at a lower rate than the rate of growth of tax receipts. I want to make the point that it is so important that we have a clear focus on what the issues are and what the needs are. We have heard from the other side of this House, over quite a number of years, the claim that we are seeing rising inequality. In fact, the most recent Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey, from 2018, showed there had been little net change in income inequality between 2001 and 2016. The respected Melbourne Institute economist, Professor Roger Wilkins, recently commented: … not only is income inequality not rising, our best guess is that it is actually falling. There is another point to make here that is very important: economic mobility is high in Australia. Almost everybody moves across the income distribution over the course of a lifetime. While at any point in time there is a distribution with those on higher incomes and those on lower incomes, the data shows that many people move through that distribution. There may well be reasons why your income is low at a particular point, but it may well be that your income is relatively higher at later stages. I also make the point that, as a nation, we have enjoyed a 29-year period of uninterrupted economic growth. That is so important in being able to deliver increasing prosperity to all Australians. Indeed, it's noteworthy that, according to the recent Productivity Commission report on poverty, over the period from 1988-89 to 2015-16 those at the bottom of the income distribution saw their incomes grow by an average of two per cent a year. That's actually a little higher than the growth we've seen from those in the middle of the income distribution. Here is what Commissioner Jonathan Coppel said in summarising the findings. He said that he hoped this major piece of work by the Productivity Commission would: … dispel the popular perception that the benefits of growth are not being broadly shared. I'd also make the point that, compared to many countries, we have a very tightly-targeted social welfare system. In other words, that $180 billion overwhelmingly goes to those with the greatest need. The evidence is that Australians in the lowest 20 per cent of incomes receive the highest amount of social assistance benefits, an average of $517 a week, whereas those in the highest 20 per cent of incomes receive only $28 per week. You may say that that is as it should be. Of course it is as it should be. But I make the point—this is something both sides of parliament can take some credit for—that our tightly-targeted social welfare system in Australia achieves that outcome in distinction to less-well-designed social welfare systems in other countries, where, in fact, a proportion of benefits go to those already on high incomes. I close with this question: what is Labor's position when it comes to these issues? What would they practically do? It is very hard to work out what their position is on Newstart, for example. Prior to the election, we were told that Labor's position was that there was going to be a review of Newstart. You might well ask: if Labor were serious about this, did they include in their costings the over $3 billion a year that it would cost to provide the increase to Newstart that they were strongly hinting they were going to provide? Do you know what? They did not include it in their costings. This is classic Labor, walking both sides of the street and hinting they were going to increase Newstart. Bill Shorten said, 'We're not reviewing Newstart to keep it at such low levels.' They never included it in their costings. Typical Labor—unfunded empathy. 15:49 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin There are some very clear indicators of a struggling economy and a struggling society. Low interest rates, high household debt, the number of people seeking food relief and homelessness are all at or near record levels right now in Australia. Interest rates are at 0.75 of a per cent. That is a very clear indicator that the economy is struggling. The minister said that you link a strong economy with poverty. If the strength of the economy is any indication of poverty then you can't get any lower than that. Each month, around 815,000 people seek food relief. That is a 22 per cent increase over the past year of people asking for food. Across the country, 116,000 people are homeless. There are 200,000 people on social housing waiting lists. Household debt, at around $2½ trillion, is at 199 per cent of household income. In South Australia, where the unemployment rate is above the national figure, the food relief numbers are much worse. According to a Foodbank report, 134,620 South Australians—that is one in 13—go hungry every month and seek food handouts. Since 2018, 17,500 more South Australians are seeking food relief every month. Most of them are women. South Australian charities report that they are unable to assist almost 8,000 people each month. These figures are not surprising when we consider that three million people live below the poverty line and, of those, as the member for Barton has quite rightly pointed out, 739,000 are children. There are 1.1 million people who are underemployed, and another 700,000 plus are unemployed. In my state, of course, the figures are worse; 16.3 per cent of South Australians, or one in six, can't get enough work. We also have 961,000 people each year delaying or avoiding taking medicine due to cost. Similarly, 1.3 million people avoid medical visits because they can't afford it. We see petrol prices and energy costs going up literally every day. Right now, petrol prices are probably at a 10-year high. The cost of living increases whilst income continues to fall. What is the Morrison government doing to help people that are struggling? Absolutely nothing. This week, in Anti-Poverty Week, we might have expected some announcement or some commitment towards helping people that are struggling in this country, but we didn't hear a single word—not even a statement from the government in response to Anti-Poverty Week. The government's response, as we just heard from the minister—and as we hear here time and time again—is, 'Get a job.' There is no care and no compassion for people facing real hardship. The government not only simply says, 'Get a job,' it actually targets the most vulnerable, trying to squeeze every last dollar out of them. It targets them with things like robo-debt, the cashless welfare card, the drug testing of welfare recipients or targeting pensioners by trying to cut the energy supplement, changing the indexation method, changing the assets test and even trying to increase the pension age to 70. For people reliant on the National Disability Insurance Scheme struggling with a disability, the rollout has been a disaster while the government tries to save $4.6 billion so it can balance its budget. Simultaneously, people on home care packages and elective surgery—who, in most cases, are people who are very much struggling—are on waiting lists of up to years. Then we go to deeming rates, which this government refuses to bring in line with reality. I know that pensioners across this country who, as a result of the low interest rates, are having their income cut are also struggling, because, simultaneously, the deeming rates are not even looked at. I haven't even touched on the poor people that have to rely on Newstart, nearly half of whom are over 45 years of age. These are the people who have most likely had their place of employment closed down and been made redundant. At their age, it's almost impossible for them to get a job, particularly if they only have limited skills. The reality is that this is a government that has no compassion and no care for people who are struggling. It doesn't care about the health outcomes, the education outcomes, the self-worth or the low morale that poverty imposes on people. This is a government that has no plan to alleviate poverty and ensure a fair go for all. Almost half a year after the election, this is a government still stuck in its own post-election party. 15:54 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney The government believes that the best way to address disadvantage and to ensure a fair go for all Australians is to give them the opportunity to get jobs. That's why our priority is jobs. Fourteen thousand and seven hundred Australians got a job in September alone. The Prime Minister said today in question time that the numbers released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics today show that we've had three years of consecutive monthly jobs growth. This is the longest consecutive run of jobs growth in our history. This is a very important fact released today that deserves underlining and acknowledgement in this chamber. The 5.2 per cent unemployment rate this month is half a percentage point lower than when we came to government. The participation rate is near record high at 66.1 per cent, as more and more Australians are encouraged to enter the labour force. Female workforce participation is also at a record high, and three-quarters of Australians aged 15 to 64 have a job—another record high. The youth unemployment rate, while still too high at 11.7 per cent, is at its lowest rate in the past six months and one percentage point lower than when we came to government. Over 1.4 million jobs have been created since the coalition came to office, and just over 310,000 have been created in the last year. We exceeded our previous commitment of a million new jobs in five years, and we've committed now to create a further 1.25 million jobs over the next five years, including 250,000 jobs for young Australians. We believe that a strong economy is the vehicle that you use to create jobs and address disadvantage. But the question we have before us today is: what is the purpose of our welfare system? Is it compensation for where someone has found themselves in life, or is it an investment in where they can go? This is the nub of the debate we have before us. Welfare is not a socialist redistribution of wealth. It is not payments to someone to simply set and then forget them. It is an investment in their future. Those policies that we took to the Australian people and that are supported by the Australian people are designed to invest in those people, to give them a future. One of the areas that's targeted by those opposite is the bill on the drug-testing trial that has recently passed this place and is now going for debate into the Senate. This is a trial that's very important to me personally. I've seen, like many others in this House, the intersection of drugs and welfare and the impact it has on not only the user but their family and their friends. One of the things you won't hear from those opposite is that the trial of the 5,000 participants at the trial sites of Canterbury Bankstown in Sydney, Logan in Queensland and Mandurah in Western Australia is designed to identify those people who need intervention in their lives at a point at which drug taking is affecting their ability to find work. What you don't hear from those opposite is that $10 million worth of support services will be directed to support these people with the intervention they need. We know that you can't get a job if you are bombed out of your brain on drugs. So the first thing that we need to do is help people with drug addiction move away from drug use. This is not just the issue as we see it. It is also how it's seen by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, whose research we know shows that illicit drug use is higher among those Australians without work. What we want to do is give the people that need support the support they need. What we're also doing is making sure the cashless debit card is working. I visited the trial site in the East Kimberley, and I know it's working. What's very interesting is that the Labor Party were very happy to support these trials when they were in majority Indigenous communities, but, as soon as they were going to be in majority white communities, that support stopped. Ms Burney 8GH That is rubbish! Mr MORTON 265931 That is the truth, member for Barton. That is the truth. What I am saying is that there is a very interesting intersection of time: between when these trials were in majority Indigenous communities and when they moved over to Queensland into the Bundaberg region, where they're proving a success, that support changed. 16:00 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta It's tempting to respond to that load of tripe, but I think we have important things to talk about here, which is the reality that our communities face. I say respectfully to the minister and to the shadow minister: you need to get out more. You really need to get out more. Let's talk about reality here. On the government's own figures, there are 19 job applicants for every entry-level job. Back in 2006, 22 per cent of vacancies were entry-level jobs, and now it's 10. Ten per cent of job vacancies are now entry-level jobs. They're the jobs that young people go into. They're the jobs that people who come from disadvantaged communities who haven't had the educational opportunities go into. It's dropped from 22 per cent in 2006 to 10 per cent now, and there are 19 applicants for every one of those jobs. Tell me anything in the government's 'plan'—and I'm using inverted commas because they don't have one that actually addresses that issue. Fifty per cent of job vacancies now require a university degree. That's a massive increase. The Department of Employment told a Senate committee last week that the average time that a person spends on Newstart is 159 weeks—that's three years. The average time a person spends on Newstart is three years. Long-term unemployment—which was 13 per cent in 2009—is 23 per cent today. Nearly a quarter of people on Newstart are now long-term unemployed. The minister and the shadow minister need to get out more, if they think the answer is 'get a job'. They should go and talk to these people who are desperate to get jobs, and can't find them because the jobs don't exist. The jobs do not exist. Show me anything in the government's plan—if it says it's so fantastic at creating jobs, show me where they are. They don't exist. It also shows up the statement that the government makes over and over again, that the Newstart payment is just a holding payment to last people a few weeks while they get another job—it shows that up as the extraordinarily dishonest statement that it is. If the average number of weeks that a person spends on Newstart is 159, Newstart is no longer a transition payment. There's something going on in the economy on this government's watch which means that people are spending more and more time on Newstart. It's about time the government got out and spoke to some of their community about that because this is an appalling failure of this government. But what we get instead is: 'Let's drug-test them.' I can tell you, if there are 19 applicants for one job, and the government is not changing that, then what difference does it make to those 19 people? They need more jobs. I want to talk about my electorate. I know my electorate very well, and I want to talk about two suburbs in my electorate in particular. One is Parramatta, where just under six per cent of households had their electricity disconnected in the three years from 2015 to 2018. Nearly six per cent of households had their electricity disconnected in those three years because they were unable to pay their bills. Nearly 15 per cent of households in Parramatta earn less than $650 a week, and the unemployment rate is 9.5 per cent. The unemployment rate there—in a CBD in the centre of my electorate!—is 9.5 per cent. Why don't you go out and tell them to get a job! They want jobs. Jobs are not there for entry-level applicants at all. Worse than that is South Wentworthville: for nearly 24 per cent of families there, the family income is less than $650 a week. That's nearly a quarter of the people in that suburb who have a household income of less than $650 a week. The unemployment rate there is 9.8. Nearly one in five households there are sole-parent households. Again, to any of those government members over there that think 'get a job', 'do a drug test' and 'it's just a transition payment' I'd suggest: go and talk to the people that live in these suburbs. I do. I doorknock them. I talk to them. I know how desperate they are to get work. And those that do have work want more work. We're not talking here about underemployment, which is even worse. On the numbers we're talking about, a person is employed even if they only work one hour a week. (Time expired) 16:05 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman I'll take the statistics from the member for Parramatta as read—that we have a challenge with underemployment, particularly youth underemployment. Let's agree on that and move on. The challenge here is about maximising employment opportunities in a great nation that's doing it better than every other country in the world. I've made this observation off the record. I'll now make it on the record: members on the other side of the chamber need to go and talk to small business, and that means going through the front door, identifying the staff and talking about how small business works and what the blocks to employment are. Opposition members interjecting— Mr LAMING E0H You can guffaw as much as you want, but the reality is that this mob on the other side know nothing more about small business than the opening hours. They vaguely wander past with the union movement and wonder where their next free sandwich is. This is a union driven political party that treats small business as anathema and has no insight into running a small business. They wouldn't know what an Excel spreadsheet was if it dropped in their laps. They would barely understand the privations of sitting at home at night and working out how to pay their staff. But that's at the heart of the Liberal-National coalition. Ms Owens E09 I'm a small-business person! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 Member for Parramatta, not quite that loudly! Mr LAMING E0H Let's move to the grounds upon which we have decided, since 2013, to bring to this place the very simple principle that, if you take income replacement for having a job, you've got to be ready to do a job—if you're healthy and of working age. It's absolutely logical that you can't be addicted to drugs and still be able to turn up and do a job. There are 3½ million Australians out there who are drug tested in the workplace—3½ million Australians who can lose their job and get a criminal record if they're on the juice. And this group over here cannot handle a trial of 5,000 drug tests, with an embedded $10 million of support for drug rehabilitation and treatment, because they regard it as a 'violation of human rights'. This Labor opposition feel that unemployment is genetic—that you stay there forever and just moan about the unemployment rates. But this government says: 'No, it's not. It is a transition back into work.' We have the audacity to hope that every person on the payment will one day get a job. And do you know what? Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 Members on my left! Ms Owens interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Parramatta is warned. Mr LAMING E0H The answer will surprise that side over there. That's actually what people want. People dream of a job. There might only be two people in the gallery, but there are tens of thousands of Australians stunned by your inability to accept—through you, Deputy Speaker—that drug testing of welfare recipients, to make sure they're ready to work, is thoroughly reasonable. It is not punishment. This building was randomly drug tested without any problem at all. Let's be honest: you can't just sit around, hands folded, saying: 'Intergenerational welfare—it's just going to stay that way forever. Household unemployment, with no-one having a job and children growing up never having a role model with a job, is okay. It's just tough luck.' It is not a life sentence. It's something Australians can transition out of. What's the proof for what I'm saying? Let's have a look at how state Labor run homelessness. How do they run public housing? They take the housing stock, the transitional housing, and they fill it all with permanent residents. So there's no transitional housing anymore, and the public housing system can't respond. You've got no chance of getting new people in until old people, who have been there for a long time, just depart the premises at some point. State Labor have no idea about how to run public housing. What happens? You get the public housing and then you stay there for life? Do you think that homelessness and public housing are a life sentence? No. We transition out of public housing into private housing, and we work every day in that direction. Where's the evidence for that? Let's do a bit of actuarial analysis of how that opposition, when in government, ran the welfare system. Since that time—thank goodness, it was 2013—we've seen 390,000 Australians no longer on the welfare system; they're back in the real economy. There have been 90,000 removed in the last 12 months, 2017-18. As long as a government keeps its eye on the transition from public payments and public transfers to moving into the real economy, it's creating vacancies for those that truly need transitional housing. There's plenty of lip from the other side. None of them are in Queensland, so they don't know just how bad it is. We believe that every working-age person who's healthy has not only a right and not only an obligation but the true challenge to ultimately enter the workforce. Those in this government never resile from that and never take their eye off it. As long as we have a Labor opposition chirping about how it's an absolute breach of human rights to do a drug test, Australians will continue to laugh at Labor's approach. 16:10 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I'd like to start by just acknowledging the people that I have the honour of representing. I have an electorate I'm very proud of. It's very colourful. As a matter of fact, it's the most multicultural electorate in the whole of Australia. With that diversity comes colour and vibrancy and many other things that we in my community should be very proud of, and I think we do it very well—we are, as many have referred to my area in the south-west of Sydney, the most successful example of multiculturalism in the country. I think that does actually distinguish us in many aspects. Apart from that, there are a couple of things I'm not real proud of. One is that we have significant pockets of less than privileged people living out there in Fowler. In other words, we have pockets of disadvantage. In Fowler, I receive not exactly the majority, but, per capita, a high degree of all the immigrants coming to this country, particularly refugees. My electorate actually embraces that. We work with that. I know that the people who come to this country bring their aims and aspirations with them. What they want is a better life for themselves and their families. And you know what? They want to work. They come here to work because they know that working is the great enabler. But what we don't have in Western Sydney at the moment are the jobs. We don't have the employment opportunities. My area used to be categorised as being a hub of light manufacturing for blue-collar workers. A lot of that manufacturing has already gone. In fact, the most significant group of blue-collar workers my area has are those aged 55 and over who have been made redundant and are not able to find another job. It's no fault of theirs that industries have restructured. And, by the way, they're living on about $40 a day. I listened to the last speaker, Andrew Laming; he would have us believe that this is some form of transitional aspect. Well, I've got to say: people aged 55 and over in that predicament know that they're not exactly going to transition into the digital economy, so it becomes their lifestyle. There's another aspect of my community that I'll talk about—and I know that homelessness has been mentioned in this debate. The University of New South Wales conducted some research on homelessness and they found that my electorate of Fowler came up No. 1 in terms of rental stress. So it's not just about being able to afford a home. The private and public rental markets are so stretched at the moment that in my electorate people commit more than a third of all the income they get—and I'm talking here about welfare payments—to paying for their rental accommodation. So when those in the government come in here and try to demean the issue of poverty, in Anti-Poverty Week, I say this. We have all been very fortunate here. There are 151 of us all up who have the privilege of representing our communities. We need to be here to make a difference for the better, for the people we represent. If you'd listened in this debate to those on the other side, you'd think they don't have anything to do about poverty or homelessness in their electorate. I'd say: go home and have a look, because you'll find pockets of disadvantage in every one of your communities. Being in the privileged positions that we are in, part of what we should be bringing to bear in this debate is what we can do, as a collective—I know they don't like that term!—to make life better for people. We should do that not just electorate by electorate but generally, whether as to how we address poverty or how we make sure that kids don't go without. One in six kids is living in poverty in this country. We often talk in here about what we do for young people. Well, if we've got a situation where one in six of them is living in conditions of poverty, this is a drawback on our society. We are a wealthy country. We should be moving to ensure that our wealth actually ensures the wellbeing of all of our people, not just a privileged few. I think on a week like this week, it being Anti-Poverty Week, we should be doing whatever we can, collectively, to alleviate poverty. One of the places where we should start is Newstart itself. The idea that we can have people living on $40 a day who can actually go out and clothe themselves and find a job is absolutely ridiculous. We need to be reasonable, we need to be realistic and we need to act now. 16:15 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I must say, as I have listened to the other side in this debate, they are some of the least optimistic people you are likely to run across. Talk about the glass being half empty—they are down to the last few drops! They seem to believe that equality in Australia will be when everybody is on a raised Newstart levy. It is not so long ago that their side of politics was attacking retirees and wanting to take away their retirement savings. They were intent on taking away their franked dividends and bringing them down to a level where they did have to go on the pension. That was their aim. That was their determination. What we on this side of the chamber are about is making Australia is a stronger, wealthier place, and I am proud to be part of a government that not only has Australia back on track; it has Australia back in the black. That's because you can't pay for extended welfare unless you can make some money, unless you are operating in the black. When Australia does well, everyone does better. Engineering equality is a little bit like investing in the environment. If you look around the world, the only countries that can afford to seriously invest in protecting their environment are those that are wealthy. It is the same with caring for people. When it comes to a welfare system, when it comes to an aged-care system and when it comes to an education system, you can only invest in it if you are paying your bills and have the economy ticking along. The strong economy in Australia is delivering a record expenditure on health. The strong economy in Australia is delivering a record expenditure on education. The strong economy in Australia is delivering a fully funded NDIS. Do those opposite know what 'fully funded' means? We had a half-funded NDIS under them. Now, with a strong economy, we have a fully funded NDIS. We have a mental health system that we are increasing assistance to on an almost weekly basis. I am very pleased to say that in my own electorate we have had three new headspace units either delivered or under construction in the last three years. We now have four headspace units across the length and breadth of Grey, and I am committed to making sure we get one at Port Pirie in the near future. We have drought assistance. Drought is undoubtedly a handbrake on our economy, but we are handling it. We've managed to put over $3 billion in direct assistance, thus far, into supporting those people affected by drought, including communities, not just farmers—the tradesmen and the other people that work within these communities—through the community drought scheme, with a total commitment thus far of $7 billion, because we on this side of politics know that a job is the best form of welfare. Youth unemployment across Australia is down a full point since we came into government. That is a good move. It needs to go further. In the last three years there has been an increase in the jobs in Australia every month—1.4 million extra people have a job in Australia since this government came to power. The Prime Minister said it today in question time: a strong economy is absolutely essential to everything. The social security and welfare payments in Australia this year are $180 billion. We as a country cannot afford to do that on borrowings. We need to do it on our good management. Good management entails making sure we support small businesses and business across the board. That's why we gave them a tax cut—so they can employ more people. It's a double benefit, too. A job is a great outcome. Not only does it reduce the taxpayers' outlay and improve the outlook of the person involved but in the end that person will be a taxpayer. This is a very virtuous cycle that the government has embarked on. The Productivity Commission report said that income tax and government transfers have reduced overall income inequality in Australia by 30 per cent. That is actually a pretty good outcome. What I say to those people who have the glass-half-empty attitude on that side of the chamber is have a look around the world. See where you would prefer to have your children living and see where you would prefer to have your parents living. (Time expired) 16:20 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond The fact is that this government has no plan to alleviate poverty and ensure a fair go for all Australians because this is a government that is defined by who they are against and they are practically against all Australians, particularly those Australians who are struggling in regional Australia. When it comes to the regions, the people there blame the National Party because the National Party have abandoned the people who live in rural, remote and regional Australia. As I have said many times before and will say again today, National Party choices hurt, and they never fight for a fair go. They never do that. Why is that? I'll tell you why. It is because the National Party are weak. They are weak at the very heart of it. In fact, we saw that today, with them having a very public tantrum. They were quite upset when the Prime Minister made an announcement on radio at the same time as they were having a press conference. So what was their reaction to that? They had a huge tantrum! It is all outlined in a very interesting tweet by Thomas O'Brien, who, of course, is a Sky News Canberra bureau chief. I won't actually read the detail of the tweet. The wording of it, and these are the National Party's words about themselves, is actually quite offensive; indeed, I think not quite parliamentary language. But even they themselves admitted they are weak. That is the reality. The legacy of this government and the legacy of the National Party will be their failure to give a fair go to Australians and their failure to assist those who are doing it tough. This week is Anti-Poverty Week and we have heard some of the facts, like these: three million Australians are living below the poverty line; more than 700,000 children are living below the poverty line; over 1.1 million Australians are underemployed. At the same time as these facts are coming out, the International Monetary Fund has downgraded Australia's economic growth projections. This is this government's shameful legacy. The fact is that people are struggling, especially in the regions, and this government's failure to act is making life more and more difficult, whether that is for young people looking for work or wanting to study or for our seniors struggling on their pensions or desperate for home care, or for those Australians on Newstart doing it tough or for workers impacted by the cuts to their penalty rates, or for all of those people at risk of homelessness who can't find affordable housing, or for sick people in need of a healthcare system or for farmers suffering in the drought. They are all desperate for real action from this government. The fact is: the National Party and this government have failed to support all of those people in need. This is a government without a plan. They are not fixing the NDIS and Centrelink. They are not reversing their cuts to pensions. They are not properly investing in our schools, TAFEs and universities. They are not properly investing in our health and hospital services and, really importantly too, they have no plan for jobs and no plan for regional jobs. We have high levels of unemployment and high levels of underemployment, and they have no plans to fix the economy nor for investing in infrastructure, which is what's needed. This government's constant attacks on our pensioners are impacting seniors right across the country. The Prime Minister still stubbornly refuses to adjust the deeming rate and, in doing so, is short-changing pensioners yet again. We know the government have a really extensive history of cuts to pensions, going back to all of their horror budgets over the past few years. Time and time again they have attacked our pensioners. We also have a government ignoring the calls from many in the community to have an increase to Newstart and, again, we call on them to do that. There is an urgent need to raise the rate of Newstart. In fact, the number of over 55s on Newstart has surged by a staggering 45 per cent under this government. With a quarter of Newstart recipients 55 or over, many people who have worked their whole lives are now living in poverty and struggling to find affordable accommodation. Indeed, in the regions there's a massive housing affordability and homelessness crisis, and people receiving Centrelink benefits are the hardest hit. Families and individuals without secure, full-time employment and who rely on some form of Centrelink allowance to survive are doing it really tough—and this government just doesn't care. The government has a shameful economic record on top of that. Australians are really worried about their job security, they're worried about the massive increases to their living costs and they're worried about their wages. They're really concerned. But this government, with this National Party, continues to do nothing. They have no plans at all to meet the economic challenges facing our nation, and there are many economic challenges. They have absolutely no agenda at all to build a better and bigger and stronger Australia—no plans for investing in infrastructure. This is a government also that has no plan to alleviate poverty and to assure a fair go for all Australians, no matter where they live. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The time for the discussion has concluded. COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Treaties Committee 74 Report 74 16:25 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 187: Oil Stock Contracts—Hungary; MRA UK; Trade in Wine UK; MH17 Netherlands; Air Services: Thailand, Timor-Leste, PNG; Work Diplomatic Families—Italy; Double Taxation—Israel. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr SHARMA 274506 by leave—I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 74 16:26 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 74 BILLS National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019 74

National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019

Second Reading 74 16:26 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 75 16:27 Mr GEE 261393 Calare by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. ADJOURNMENT 75 ADJOURNMENT Calwell Electorate: Community Events 75 16:28 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I want to take the opportunity to speak about some very important events that took place in my electorate during the recent parliamentary recess. I want to start by congratulating the Corpus Christi Community Greenvale on the official opening of their newly redeveloped complex for homeless men. In doing so, can I acknowledge the tireless efforts of the chairperson of Corpus Christi Community board, Mr Bernie Cronin, who has in his seven-year tenure tenaciously advocated for this redevelopment on behalf of his community. The residents and staff of Corpus Christi Community are very lucky indeed to have such a strong, compassionate voice batting for them. I was very pleased to attend the official opening that was held on Tuesday 1 October, and the community celebrated with great joy. The $24 million redevelopment project was made possible with funding of $12 million from the Australian government, and on behalf of the Corpus Christi Community I want to thank the then minister Mitch Fifield for his assistance in this matter. The government's $12 million funding was matched by Villa Maria Catholic Homes, and I want to formally acknowledge Julien O'Connell, the chair of the VCMH Board, and Sonya Smart, the CEO, for overseeing this generous contribution. I also want to thank the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and the former archbishop, Denis Hart, who supported this project. I also acknowledge the Most Reverend Peter Comensoli, the Archbishop of Melbourne, who took time out of his busy schedule to give the official blessing of the site on the day. For the past 40 years the Corpus Christi Community, Greenvale, opened by Mother Teresa herself, has provided accommodation and support to older men over the age of 50 with a history of homelessness, addiction or complex health needs. This new redevelopment will build on the important work they do in assisting some of the most vulnerable and marginalised in our community. This new redevelopment of the Corpus Christi Community Greenvale building will house 90 beds for men who experience homelessness or are at risk of homelessness and offer them a safe, secure and independent lifestyle in a caring and vibrant community. Last week was Gambling Harm Awareness Week. I had the opportunity to speak at the Meadow Heights Education Centre during a day of events aimed at raising awareness about the direct and indirect impacts of gambling harm to individuals, their families and the community. I want to thank Nader Hanna, the manager of Meadow Heights Education Centre, for hosting this very important event. I also want to thank Tony Clarkson, the Principal Clinical Adviser of the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, for speaking to my constituents. I also want to thank Arabic Welfare's Abir Melhem and Dalia El Sharnouby for all their work in organising this event. Gambling and the use of poker machines is a growing area of expenditure for locals in my electorate, with over $300,000 per day spent on pokies in the Hume area. The serious effects of gambling impacts not only the finances of an individual but also through the loss of physical and mental health, the breakdown of relationships, work performance and self-esteem. The consequences of gambling are devastating to the individual and to those around them and, yet, this is still an issue that we've had to contend with for many, many years and have not managed to overcome. Another very big thing happened in Broadmeadows this month. I want to congratulate the Hume City Council on the completion of the redevelopment of the Broadmeadows Town Hall. It's great to see the newly rebuilt Town Hall Broadmeadows take its place, once again, as the iconic building in Broadmeadows. It's a magnificent and elegant building combining and incorporating modern architectural settings with the charm and grace of its original old world design. I do hope that our local community will enjoy using this beautiful space. In fact, last Friday night I attended the recommencement of the Hume Charity Ball hosted by the Mayor Carly Moore and it was, indeed, a great pleasure and we had a great night celebrating in a fabulous space for our community. It was the Hon. Arthur Calwell, the Labor opposition leader at the time and Australia's first Minister for Immigration, who officially opened the original Broadmeadows Town Hall and office block back in November 1964. Some 20 years later, in 1984, the electorate of Calwell was founded, which, of course, I have the privilege of representing in this House. I want to congratulate my community on this latest new addition to our community. Leifer, Ms Malka 76 16:33 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth I wish to address the House about an important issue of justice. Malka Leifer, who was the principal of Adass Israel School in Elsternwick, Melbourne, left Australia in 2008, two days after she was sacked by the school board amid allegations surrounding her relationship with some of the pupils at her school. In 2013, 74 charges of sexual assault were filed against Ms Leifer in connection with her time at Adass Israel School. In 2014, Australia made a formal request for extradition of Ms Leifer in order to face these 74 charges. In the same year, 2014, this extradition request was filed in the Jerusalem District Court. I recall this well. I was representing Australia in Israel at the time as our ambassador. I distinctly recall receiving and formally conveying our extradition request. I expected it would be a straightforward case, that the wheels of justice would turn and that within the space of 12 to 18 months we would see Ms Leifer extradited to Australia in order to face justice for these most grave and serious charges levelled against her. But I regret to report that, in the five years that have since elapsed, we seem to be no closer to seeing this extradition request fulfilled. There have been upwards of 60 court hearings in this case in Israel and, yet, we are no closer to having Ms Leifer extradited. This is not only an affront to justice but deeply traumatic for the victims of this abuse, many of whom, I know, live in the seat of the member for Macnamara. It is damaging to Israel's reputation, and it is increasingly becoming a point of contention and friction in our otherwise positive and productive relationship with Israel. In the latest hearing on this case, on 10 October, Israel's Supreme Court overturned an almost inexplicable decision made by a lower court the week before to release Ms Leifer to house arrest. The Supreme Court ordered that she remain behind bars for the remainder of the legal proceedings against her. Ms Leifer has continually used claims about her mental state to frustrate and delay attempts to extradite her. The willingness of the Israeli legal system to entertain these claims seems to take no consideration of the fragile mental state of Ms Leifer's alleged victims and their legitimate desire to see justice served in this case. I note that Israeli Supreme Court Justice Anat Baron said at last week's hearing: The doubt itself regarding the credibility of the defendant in everything relating to her mental status creates the concern that this is an attempt by her to escape justice and to disrupt the legal proceedings. I endorse those comments. Members of the House would be aware that, in a further twist in this case, the Israeli police have recommended the indictment of deputy health minister Yaakov Litzman for allegedly pressuring officials in his office to prevent the extradition. This is an exceptionally serious allegation. If true, this would be a gross interference in the course of justice. I hope it is fully and fearlessly investigated. I do not doubt the independence and the integrity of the Israeli legal system, nor do I doubt the commitment of the Israeli Ministry of Justice to pursuing this case. But enough is enough. This case has gone on for far too long. I endorse the comments of the Israeli Ambassador to Australia, Mark Sofer, last week when he said: … this case has gone on for far too long and nothing short of full justice can be acceptable. I also endorse the comments of an unnamed Israeli diplomatic official who was quoted in Haaretz last week as saying, 'This story is shocking to the Australian public,' and that this case is causing 'harm to Israel-Australia relations'. I can only advise, as a friend, that this case is indeed causing harm to our relations and it is doing damage to Israel's reputation as a country governed by the rule of law. It is very important that Israel knows at all levels that this is an important case for Australia. It is one that is increasingly having an impact on bilateral relations and how Israel is viewed and perceived in Australia. It is one that we will not let rest until we see Ms Leifer extradited to face justice in Australia. We will keep faith with the victims of this awful abuse, and we will be relentless in ensuring that justice is done in this case. Democracy 76 16:38 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I start by associating myself with the comments by the member for Wentworth, and I'm sure the member for Macnamara also echoes the sentiments. Like most members, I get to spend a lot of my time in my job at school graduation ceremonies in my community. When I talk to young people who are finishing high school at these ceremonies, I tell them that they are entering a very different world to the one I entered when I finished at school 20 years ago. When I left school, Francis Fukuyama had recently published his book The End of History and the Last Man, which argued that we had it all figured out, that liberal democracies and open economies were the final form of government and that it was all just managerialism from here on in for political leaders in the West. That's obviously not the world we live in today. Since the global financial crisis, we have seen both the economic and the political appeal of this final form of government take a battering. Years of stalling economic growth following a period of ballooning inequality mean that the economic model of the West is no longer the international beacon that it once was. Similarly, the trashing of norms and democratic institutions led by the rise of populism across the West has led to a crisis of confidence in democracy across large parts of the globe. At the same time that liberal democracy has been stalling, an alternative model, a new system for organising society, has emerged. Techno-authoritarianism, a new model of technology-enabled autocracy in which governments use new technological tools to control their own citizens and their economies, has been growing in influence in the developing world. Under this new system, governments work hand in hand with private companies to build systems of mass surveillance of both the online and the physical worlds of their citizens and then apply artificial intelligence tools to the resulting data flows in order to build systems of social control. Ubiquitous biosurveillance, facial recognition monitoring and gait analysis track people in this system as they move through the physical world. For example, there is remotely issuing traffic infringement notices to people spotted jaywalking or logging the presence of individuals at protests before storing this data in government controlled citizen profiles. This is accompanied by ubiquitous online surveillance of individuals in this system, tracking citizens' public and private conversations on social media platforms, censoring discussions in near real time to control public opinion, and flagging influential or pervasive dissidents for a real-world visit from agents of the state. It's a model that's been championed for many years now in the international internet governance forums that shape how the internet operates, and it is part of the reason why we've seen a Balkanisation of the experience of using the internet around the world in the past decade. The rise of techno-authoritarianism is a direct challenge to the liberal democratic model. It's forced us back into a world of competing systems for organising societies. I tell those students who I meet at high school graduation ceremonies in my community that the outcome of this competition between systems won't be decided by dissidents and activists in authoritarian countries, by the statements of international NGOs or by resolutions from multilateral organisations, no matter how well intentioned. This competition will principally be decided by their own actions—by what we do in democratic countries like Australia to restore confidence in the liberal democratic model. We face the same challenge today that leaders like Curtin, Chifley and JFK faced a generation ago: to win the hearts and minds of the people to the cause of democracy. We can only win this by building a democracy that delivers on the big challenges that matter to our citizens—challenges like delivering economic security for workers in a 21st century economy and preventing catastrophic climate change. But to win this competition between systems also requires us to articulate, champion and live by the values and norms of liberal democracy in this place. If we want Australians to believe in democracy, we have to defend it ourselves. We have to live it. We have to say that it is antidemocratic to have the AFP raiding the offices of our journalists or for a government to interfere in the independence of the ABC. We have to say that it is antidemocratic to seek to use the welfare system to punish citizens for exercising freedom of speech or assembly. We have to understand the corrosive effect of public perceptions of corruption in this place and address it through the creation of a federal anticorruption commission. We have to understand the big picture of how technology is being used to subvert democratic values in countries around the world, and we need to articulate a new settlement of how to resolve competing rights and values on the internet in a way that champions a democratic alternative to the emerging techno-authoritarianism of the developing world. It's incumbent on all of us in this place to consider how the things we do in this place, and the way that we do them, sustain the democracy that brought us all here and that we all value so much. Wide Bay Electorate: Community Development Grants Program 77 16:43 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay It's a real pleasure to be able to stand here in the parliament today in this adjournment debate to talk about some of the wonderful things that are happening in the great region of Wide Bay. Wide Bay is truly blessed with many geographical and physical attributes that make it truly special. Whether it be the beaches of Noosa, the Gympie gold that once saved the state from bankruptcy or the coloured sands of the Fraser coast and the World Heritage listed Fraser Island, they are all special. But what is truly special about Wide Bay, and what is really the heart of Wide Bay, is its people. Its people are the heart of Wide Bay. They are special. That's why I'm so proud to be a part of a government that's delivering funds through the Community Development Grants fund to help support programs and community organisations that work within Wide Bay to provide services to people in need. Once again, these organisations are primarily run by volunteers—people with a generous heart. One of those organisations is the Murgon RSL. Some time ago, Trevor Williamson OAM visited my office to tell me about a project that he was absolutely keen on getting up, and that was a drop-in centre for the veterans in Murgon. Trevor is a very busy man. He is also the president of the Wide Bay-South Burnett District RSL—so he knows his stuff. He was seeking $400,000 from the Commonwealth to construct a drop-in centre on a block of land that the RSL had already acquired. I worked with Trevor on how best we could do this, and just before the last election I managed to secure those funds—and it was a great pleasure to do so. When constructed, it will be a facility that will help our former servicemen. You cannot get a more noble or worthy cause than helping the people who have kept our nation safe—those who have put their life on the line. This drop-in centre will help those people. It is truly in the spirit of those Anzacs who established the RSL back in 1916. This is about former service people coming together. It is about mateship and providing services for those special needs of people in the RSL. It truly is an honour to be a part of a government that is able to provide $450,000 to help bring this to fruition. Another amazing organisation that the Morrison-McCormack government has recently helped through funding from the Community Development Grant is the Riding For The Disabled Association Maryborough. I really do enjoy going to the Maryborough Riding For The Disabled and meeting up with Noel Ryan, who is really one of the lynchpins there. It is such a special place. They cater for people with disabilities and people who need added help—with people there aged from four to 54. It really is inspiring watching these predominantly young people ride the horses. As somebody who is more of a motorbike man who is petrified around horses, I can still see the confidence that being on these horses gives these young kids mainly. Recently the government provided $68,000 through a Community Development Grant to help build a covered area for the kids to ride. This will be really valuable to these people. Now they will be able to increase the number of people who can attend and also the number of volunteers and build the organisation. It is something that gives these young people confidence and independence, and there really is nothing more important than that. As I said before, none of these things would be possible unless we had an economy that could pay the bills. The Morrison-McCormack government manages money prudently and it pays the bills so that we can help community organisations, such as those that I have talked about in my speech tonight. Paterson Electorate: Chemical Contamination 78 16:48 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson The front page of the Port Stephens Examinertoday reads: 'Ignored, abandoned'. Journalist Charlie Elias accurately describes how residents living in PFAS affected areas feel, especially those living in Williamtown, Salt Ash and Fullerton Cove, in my electorate. I've stood in this House on more than 20 occasions and spoken about PFAS contamination. I've read letters and delivered messages directly from people who have been impacted by this. I have implored Prime Ministers—many of them—to come to my electorate. I have read reports and studies and I have given my two bob's worth on how the government has handled this fiasco. I've invited Prime Ministers and ministers to my office and my community, and my community have invited them into their homes. Most of the time they have been denied. Today I want to tell you about the history of this. Legacy firefighting foams containing perfluorinated chemicals were used extensively in Australia from the 1970s due to their effectiveness in extinguishing liquid fuel fires. Concerns later emerged about the potential environmental and human health impacts of these chemicals. In 2004, Defence began phasing out the use of legacy firefighting foams containing PFOS and PFOA, two of the active chemical ingredients. In 2012, investigations began at RAAF Base Williamtown into the extent of PFAS contamination on and around the base, and into the effects on the environment and on the humans who live around that area. The community was completely naive to these investigations. On 4 September 2015, people who were living by the RAAF Base Williamtown learnt they were potentially living on contaminated land and drinking contaminated water when they read the front page of their paper, the Newcastle Herald. At the time, they didn't know what the contamination meant for their health, their property or their future, but they knew that the government elected to serve them had to do something and that it had failed them. They were told to stop eating the food from their vegetable gardens, stop eating the eggs their chickens produced, stop drinking the water that their tanks held, stop running the businesses that they'd built, stop fishing in their waterways. A line was drawn on a map with a red pen, and, from then on, it was known as 'the red zone'. These days, the government like to call it 'the primary management zone'. Call it what you want, because 2,000 people in my electorate still call it home. It's been four years since those investigations in Williamtown began, and the community has received little comfort and very few answers. After I asked the Valuer General of New South Wales to do an assessment of property values, they concluded the land value alone had dropped by 15 per cent—although anecdotal evidence was that it was much higher—while comparable properties and neighbouring properties had increased by 30 per cent, which meant a 45 per cent real decrease in affected properties. There is no internationally agreed safe level of PFAS chemical in human blood. That, we know. The studies from around the world about the health effects of PFAS contamination are inconsistent or inconclusive. Surely, the precautionary principle to protect human health should abide. More than 50 people have died of various types of cancer on a five-kilometre stretch of rural road now known as 'cancer tree road' rather than Cabbage Tree Road. The government says this is a coincidence. I say: prove it. Over the years, we've had two inquiries, one by the Senate and one by a House committee. I sat on the last one. But it didn't take me sitting on it for those people in that committee to realise that our people have been terribly affected. It's been more than 12 months since that last inquiry. The government has failed to respond to it, with the minister saying that it had been handed to another department and it wasn't finalised yet. How long does this take? This month, the Williamtown community lost its reference group and the elected reference group is long gone. I say to this Prime Minister: these people feel forgotten. I say to the Attorney-General: instruct the government lawyers to settle the class actions, look the people of Williamtown in the eye and please come to their aid. Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program 2019 79 16:53 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom In recent weeks I've participated with two colleagues from this House, Liberal and Labor, in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program in the Middle East. I recognise that many colleagues in this House have similarly participated in this program across our country and in international theatres over recent years, and they, too, have quite rightly had the opportunity to report on their experience. My statement will not be a new one in that sense, but I believe it's important to reiterate two things: firstly, we should encourage members of this parliament to participate in these opportunities as a unique way to get a glimpse of the lives of our service women and men; and, secondly, we should always take every opportunity to explain such observations to the people of Australia. We should be justifiably proud of our soldiers, sailors and Air Force women and men. At the outset, I sincerely thank the minister for defence personnel and the Vice Chief of the Defence Force for this wonderful, though challenging, opportunity. Our program, like that for serving personnel commencing a deployment, began with orientation and training in emergency measures, firearm handling and first aid designed for warlike circumstances—all necessary to pick up the basic knowledge and skills for safe deployment into a potentially hazardous environment. We then proceeded to get firsthand experience of the professionalism, courage, resilience and good nature of our service women and men in the Army, Air Force and Navy. It was such a precious and revealing opportunity to live and work with them for a week. From the return services flight from Australia to the Middle East to sharing the same living facilities and amenities, we embedded with our troops for just over a week. There can be no doubt that our people on deployment in the Middle East endure very challenging conditions—what most of us would consider to be extreme heat in a very harsh environment. But they are providing the equipment, logistic support and backup for our various missions throughout the region. They are based in various locations throughout the region, training local defence forces so that they might take on the security functions to protect their own populations. That work is proceeding well. They back up their colleagues with transport, freight, refuelling and other services on land, on sea and in the air. They provide protection for their own in those various locations throughout the region at the same time. I reflected on the men and women in my own electorate of Groom—locals and those who have joined us for a period over the years at the Army aviation training centre at the Swartz Barracks at Oakey, and the 7th Signal Regiment Electronic Warfare unit at the Borneo Barracks at Cabarlah. Both of these bases were recognised by many of those that I saw on deployment in the Middle East. It was particularly good to catch up with the son of a very good friend of mine and to spend some time with a chap who was a former school captain from Toowoomba in my own electorate—and what a fine chap he is! More recently, as I've returned home, I've been contacted by another serving member currently on deployment in the Middle East and originally from my own community on the Darling Downs as part of a farming family. Like so many other regions of Australia, ours has a very proud military tradition, and I am simply in awe of those we engaged with in the Middle East. The program has filled in some of my knowledge regarding our defence architecture. Like others in this parliament, I've been honoured to be a member of the Defence Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit—which reviews defence expenditure amongst other things—and, of course, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, which scrutinises large expenditure—more often than not in Defence. Then to spend time with people on the ground, training, living, dining, laughing with them and philosophising with them, in the case of being in and around the theatre of conflict, was truly a magnificent opportunity. I don't wish to reveal any confidentialities here, but suffice it to say that of those who escorted us, the two majors, were amongst the most generous, patient, professional and engaging chaps I've ever dealt with. I'm in awe of them and all of their colleagues. I congratulate them, I applaud them and, above all else, I thank them from the bottom of my heart for what they do for our country, the time they spend away from their families and what they're doing for my family as well. Housing Affordability 80 16:58 The SPEAKER 00APG I call the member for Lindsay for about two minutes. 16:58 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay When the Prime Minister visited Penrith in May, he spoke about delivering the policies that unlock the potential for all Australians. The Prime Minister said: 'This is why I'm in politics. I believe in people's aspirations.' So do I. The Morrison government believes in supporting aspirational Australians, and we are backing aspirational Australians. In my first week in parliament, we delivered tax relief to over 77,000 workers in my electorate of Lindsay. In Western Sydney, we are creating jobs, delivering infrastructure upgrades to bust congestion and build safer roads, investing in our schools and hospitals and backing our small businesses with tax relief and lower energy costs. I was proud that this week the Morrison government passed the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme to help Australians realise their aspirations to own their own home. Saving a deposit has become a much more significant barrier to entering the housing market. It can take 10 years for the average first home buyer to save a 20 per cent deposit. The scheme will support 10,000 first home buyers each financial year by guaranteeing eligible home buyers on low and middle incomes that they can purchase their first home with a deposit of as little as five per cent. Having worked in the social and affordable housing sector, I know that getting into the housing market is critical to having financial security. Many hardworking Australians are locked out of this financial security by the barrier of a 20 per cent deposit. We are backing them in and rewarding their hard work by breaking down this barrier. Prime Minister Howard described Lindsay as a microcosm of the Australian community, with lots of families, retired people, small businesses and community spirit. The Morrison government is committed to backing hardworking people in Western Sydney and across Australia, helping them reach their aspiration of owning their first home by delivering complementary incentives to reduce pressure on housing affordability and to support local communities. House adjourned at 17 : 00 NOTICES 80 NOTICES

Thursday, 17 October 2019

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou) took the chair at 09:59.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 82 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Blair Electorate: Infrastructure 82 09:59 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Once again I put on record my support for the Western Pride application for an A-League licence in football. Western Pride are based in Ipswich, and I look forward to a team in green and white playing in the A-League in football. I also put on record my strong support for an NRL licence bid, sponsored by the Ipswich Jets in support of Logan and Toowoomba. Ipswich is the home of many sporting families—the Walterses and the Langers in rugby league, and the Kitchings in football. It's the home and heartland of football and rugby league. I call on the federal government and the Queensland government to support the Ipswich City Council's upgrade of facilities at the North Ipswich Reserve. We need the North Ipswich Reserve, the premier football arena in Ipswich, because we need national sporting code accreditation for the facility. At the last federal election, Labor made a commitment to improve female facilities and terraced seating, but Ipswich City Council is developing a business case in relation to the upgrade of the reserve. I commend the interim administrator, Greg Chemello, for committing $10 million towards the early-stage development of the stadium. It's imperative that elected representatives across the whole region support this particular upgrade. It will cost about $200 million to $250 million, but it's absolutely critical for the development of the region. I want to put on record that this is not a choice between a new stadium and transport infrastructure. We absolutely need upgrades in the region of the Centenary Highway, the Warrego Highway and the Cunningham Highway, as well as the Norman Street Bridge, because the David Trumpy Bridge is at maximum capacity, linking the south side of Ipswich with the north. This will be an important jobs-creating enterprise as well—infrastructure and sporting pathways which will encourage local talent to remain in the area and pursue first-class sporting careers. It's absolutely crucial for the development of Ipswich. There are many areas that are growing. Ipswich will double its population in the next 20 years. We have significant burgeoning suburbs such as Ripley, Redbank Plains, Springfield, Leichhardt and Deebing Heights all across my electorate. There are young families looking for affordable ways of entering the property market in this region, and a first-class nationally accredited sporting stadium at the North Ipswich Reserve is absolutely crucial. I support the bids for the NRL licence and the A-League licence, commend the Ipswich City Council and urge the federal government and the state government of Queensland to support this vital infrastructure for my home city. Breast Cancer 82 10:02 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff October is Australia's Breast Cancer Awareness Month. During this month we remember those people affected by breast cancer and try to engage with the community to save lives. All women are at risk of developing breast cancer, and this risk increases with age, with one in seven women in Australia diagnosed with breast cancer by their 85th birthday. Breast cancer also affects men, with 164 men estimated to be diagnosed in 2019. Australia has made huge strides in diagnosing and treating breast cancer, with the current five-year relative survival rate now at 90.8 per cent. There has also been so much magnificent work done in recent years to raise awareness of breast cancer, but there is always more to be done. As part of a national screening program, BreastScreen Queensland provides free high-quality breast screening for women without breast cancer symptoms from age 40 onwards. Women aged between 50 and 74 years are recommended to have a breast screen every two years, as the evidence of screening benefit is strongest for women in this age group. A regular screening mammogram can detect most breast cancer early before it can be felt or even noticed. If breast cancer is found early, it's more likely to be small and successfully treated. Currently, some areas in my electorate show lower than average participation in the free national breast cancer screening program. The Surfers Paradise area is of particular concern, with nearly half of women aged 50 to 74, the age group where the evidence of benefit of screening mammography is strongest, are participating in the BreastScreen program. If you're a woman in this age group who resides in Surfers Paradise, Miami or Nerang on the Gold Coast, or around Australia, who has not had a breast screen recently, this is your reminder. That woman is me, and I myself have now made an appointment for my check-up. Research remains our best hope to defeat cancer and to develop more effective treatments that will prevent or control the condition. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Griffith University, in my electorate, who are doing amazing work in the cancer research space. I visited the ADaPT facility, where they use innovative technologies, including 3D printing, to improve chemotherapeutics and overcome limitations of many drugs used today. They're also providing therapeutics for cancers where there are no current treatment options. Specifically for breast cancer, Griffith are on the brink of discovering a new drug which could revolutionise the treatment of some aggressive forms of this terrible disease. We hope one day these drugs will be on the market so that, together, we can combat this disease. I'm also proud to be part of a government that is doing so much work in this space. The Morrison government is committed to fighting cancer and is investing in a range of activities and services to improve breast cancer outcomes. We continue to list the latest proven treatments for breast cancer on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, making treatments affordable for the Australian community. In May, Ibrance was listed for patients with the most advanced form of the most common type of breast cancer. Around 3,000 women each year will benefit from this decision, saving more than $55,000 a year for this treatment. (Time expired) Jagajaga Electorate: Bundoora Italian Senior Citizens Group, Heidelberg Historical Society 83 10:05 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I commend the Bundoora Italian senior citizens group on their recent 30-year anniversary. It was an honour to join the senior citizens along with my colleagues the member for Scullin and the Victorian state member for Mill Park, Lily D'Ambrosio, and Banyule councillor Rick Garotti to celebrate this wonderful milestone. It is 30 years of voluntary, unpaid service to Italian seniors and pensioners across Melbourne's north. Every Thursday this wonderful group put on nothing short of a wedding sized event for their members: three courses of food, great coffee and animated music performances and dancing. They organise an active social calendar to ensure members are kept busy. It's so important that elderly Italians are able to maintain a connection to their culture, to their language and to each other. They also make sure that their local elected representatives visit them very frequently, and I was very pleased to join them. I say 'mille grazie' to the committee and to two wonderful women in particular, Maria Biondo and Antonietta Filippi, who've been wonderful supporters of mine and of the member for Scullin. Both Maria and Antonietta have been recipients of Australia Day awards in the past for their service. This community group do a wonderful job, supporting and continuing their Italian culture locally. Maintaining this culture is vital, and it makes us a stronger community as a whole. There is an extraordinary and positive contribution made by migrants to both our economy and our society. They make our communities stronger, and it is our responsibility, as the drivers of policy, to ensure the capacity of migrants is fully realised. That's why celebrating people like Maria and Antonietta, who bring our communities together, is so vital. We must be reminded of the strengths of different cultures and how they are positively shaping and changing our communities. I recently met with the Heidelberg Historical Society, a local community group with a dedicated passion for understanding and preserving the history of Heidelberg and our wider community. They are building a place for objects, documents and artefacts that explain our history. Some members of this group have dedicated their entire working lives to local history, and others have a keen interest and have picked up skills along the way. Their collection includes maps, brochures, community group minutes and members lists. Their current exhibition features a historical quilt from the mid-1890s, which they've used to unpick the story of many local families and businesses from that time. I commend president Jenn Burgess and the executive, who have worked tirelessly to create a fun, educational and welcoming environment. The wonderful collections at the museum currently don't have museum standard preservation, with no climate control and limited storage. I know that in the coming years I will be looking to support them to ensure they can take the best care of this collection and support them with applications for grants when the time is right. I look forward to working closely with this group into the future. O'Connor Electorate: Taxation 83 10:08 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to speak on an issue of critical importance to my constituents, which is the Productivity Commission review into remote area tax concessions. This review was initiated by the Treasurer late last year. The Productivity Commission have been working on this and recently released their draft report. I have to say on behalf of my constituents that they are very disappointing findings that the Productivity Commission have come up with, particularly in relation to fringe benefits tax concessions, which the Productivity Commission have recommended be removed. I'll come back to the impact of that in a moment, but I want to illuminate the House on just what those remote communities in my electorate contribute to the Australian economy. The five shires surrounding the city of Kalgoorlie-Boulder produce around $10 billion worth of mineral product annually. The shire of Coolgardie, which has a population of about a thousand people, produces $3.2 billion worth of product on its own. Those of us who live in regional areas understand that often the required skills are not available locally, and we completely except that mining businesses and other businesses support contractors and will fly in the necessary expertise. That is an important part of their business. However, we would like to see government policy and taxation policy encouraging people to live residentially because it's important that those communities are sustained, that they have a critical mass so we can have schools, we can have medical facilities and we can have functional operating sporting clubs, hence my great disappointment that the 50 per cent concession on residential housing has been recommended to be removed by the Productivity Commission. The corollary of this is, if a mining company flies in a worker, puts them up in a camp and provides them with meals, that is 100 per cent tax deductible as an operational expense under the current arrangements. If the same mining company decided that they would provide accommodation for that worker in the local town, in the local community, currently there is a 50 per cent concession, a fringe benefits tax concession. The Productivity Commission recommended that that 50 per cent concession be removed. I want to reassure my community that I'll be fighting this recommendation tooth and nail. I've already had conversations with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. I would like to see not only the status quo retained but, in fact, the 50 per cent concession increased to 100 per cent to put us on the same playing field as the fly-in fly-out worker. Fraser Electorate: St Albans Moon Lantern Festival, Fraser Electorate: Australian Buddhist Centre 84 10:11 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser The Vietnamese community in Fraser is one of the largest, most vibrant and rapidly growing and is home to over 30,000 Vietnamese Australians calling my electorate home. Fraser hosts many important festival events each year that exemplify Vietnamese culture and add to the rich diversity of the Fraser, one of which will take place in the bustling centre of St Albans this weekend. St Albans Moon Lantern Festival, or Tet Trung Thu, is a very special occasion for children and for family and community reunions to celebrate the harvest. Lantern festivals are popular traditional events celebrated in Vietnam and many other South-East Asian communities. When the full moon rises, as it has this week, families get together to celebrate and eat mooncakes and sing moon poems. During the St Albans festival, there will be thousands of members of my community gathered to watch parades, make and carry lanterns, and enjoy spectacular dancing and traditional food. In anticipation of this weekend's fun and festivities, I would like to acknowledge all of the hard work that's been invested in this community festival by volunteers and by the St Albans Business Group Association. I thank them for organising this event. I would also like to acknowledge another event this weekend, as it marks the official opening of a very special community space in my electorate, the Australian Buddhist Centre in Cairnlea. This important area has been under construction for two years. It will be home to the United Vietnamese Buddhist Congregation of Australia and New Zealand. The centre has cost over $6 million to construct, and I think it's important to acknowledge that the vast majority of this has been raised by members of the community and donors throughout my electorate. This will be an important cultural centre of Australian-Vietnamese Buddhism. It will be an institute for teaching and learning and practising Buddhism for the Vietnamese Australian Buddhist community. It is a unique architectural achievement that stands on the Cairnlea grasslands as a striking and beautiful example of traditional Vietnamese Buddhist worship. In the 2016 census, 2.4 per cent of Australians identified as Buddhist, and Buddhism is Australia's fastest growing faith. This grand new Buddhist centre will be a place of great spiritual significance for all Buddhist organisations across Australia and New Zealand. I am delighted that it is placed in my electorate. Thanks are owed to thousands of donors and supporters of this project across my electorate and the broader community. Particular acknowledgment is due to Venerable Thich Phuoc Tan OAM, Chair of the Organising Committee, and Senior Venerable Thich Thien Tam, the President of the United Vietnamese Buddhist Congregation, who will officially open the centre on Sunday. Congratulations to the organising committee and to the broader community who have made this wonderful centre possible. Petrie Electorate: 2019 Job Seeker Boot Camp 84 10:14 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie In the last six years, 1.4 million jobs have been created in Australia, predominantly in the private sector, and that's an increase of some 12.6 per cent, which is fantastic for Australians. In my electorate of Petrie jobs have always been one of the top issues for locals. It's important to the local community that we have jobs locally available, close to home and close to where they work, so they don't have to travel as far. Being a former small business owner myself, I know the value of local employment and the benefits it has for families. I originally came up with the concept of a jobseeker boot camp in my electorate based on my experience of hiring people. When I hire people, what is it that I look for? Whilst out campaigning back in 2012 I recognised a real need to bring together job provider agencies, employers and potential employees under the one roof and so I now host these regular jobseeker boot camps. Last week's jobseeker boot camp was one of the biggest on record with more than 150 unemployed attendees on the RSVP list. There were plenty of guest speakers from industries like recycled timber business, an Israeli restaurant, a kitchen manufacturer in my electorate, a hairdresser and Dolphin sporting club, which is the second-biggest employer after the hospital on the peninsula. These boot camps offer great opportunities for jobseekers to hear firsthand from employers about what they look for when hiring. Last year we had an employer attend the session with three jobs available. He was pleased to let me know, following the boot camp, that he actually recruited one of the people who spoke to him on the day. This year's event featured a number of key speakers, and I also had the Australian Defence Force there. There are many opportunities for people within the Australian Defence Force for good paid work and study. APM employment agency came onboard to sponsor this year's event, and I want to thank them for it. It definitely was the best jobseeker boot camp to date. They provided morning tea for 150 people. The venue at Market Square Deception Bay was brilliant. In the past, I've had other job search providers helping me, but thank you to APM employment. Michael Kennedy from Kennedy's Timbers has also told me that this week they've interviewed four jobseekers, and one long-term unemployed person will start a paid trial next week at the business. They're confident that they will be able to fill three positions and two apprenticeships. That is great news for locals. Sikh Community 85 10:17 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Waheguru ji ka khalsa waheguru ji ki fateh. Earlier this week I was honoured to host members of our Sikh community here in Parliament House to celebrate the 550th anniversary of the birth of Guru Nanak born in 1469, the first guru and founder of Sikhism. Many will not be aware that Sikhism is now the fifth-largest religion in Australia according to the 2016 census and is one of the fastest-growing faith communities. Sikhism calls on its adherents to develop a thoughtful connection to their faith and serve communities around them. It is a religion that promotes a vision of social equality where all people are entitled to equal rights and individual respect. On Tuesday I hosted a dinner with Mr Avtar Singh, from the electorate of Calwell, who led a delegation of Sikhs from McEwen and the wider community to celebrate this momentous occasion. Avtar is very heavily involved with the Sikh temple in Craigieburn and is president of the now famous Hume Bombers Football Club. He is a three-time recipient of the AFL community multicultural ambassador award and, proudly, I can say that he is a close friend of mine. I want to thank Avtar and his friends for joining us here in Canberra. We were also joined by Deepak-Raj Gupta, the former chairman of the Australia India Business Council and now the very hardworking member for Yerrabi in the ACT Legislative Assembly. The other delegation members were professionals including an antique restorer and small business owners who employ lots of our local residents. These individuals are a testament to our diverse and inclusive community, which is why the electorate of McEwen fosters some of the best and most hardworking people that Australia has to offer. I would like to thank my Labor colleagues, including the Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, and the deputy leader, Richard Marles, and our shadow ministers Clare O'Neil, Michelle Rowland and Chris Bowen who came by to make their presence known and speak to the group. We know they have busy schedules, and to have them to come and speak to our delegation was very important. It was a wonderful opportunity for our community members to hear from members of the Labor team about what a modern, 21st-century Australia looks like: a respectful, inclusive place that enables people from any background to thrive and prosper. There is no doubt that our communities are made better by hardworking Australians like Avtar. It is made better still by the attitudes of acceptance in our electorate. It welcomes diversity and harnesses the involvement of all residents for our local community. Promoting inclusion, no matter what a person's culture or religious background is, is what enables people to develop positive cultures allowing communities to thrive. Our electorate is one of the fastest growing in Australia, and I'm proud to be part of the Labor team—a party which will always be a place to give a voice to diversity and recognise the strength of multiculturalism in our great country. Longman Electorate: Charitable Organisations, Caboolture Meals on Wheels Association 85 10:20 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman The electorate of Longman is full of many wonderful charities, community groups, organisations and people with hearts of gold who go out of their way to help and support the people who need it the most. Community groups and organisations like these help us pave our way towards strengthening and creating inclusive, connected, engaged and cohesive communities for everyone and anyone. Knowing that these groups exist within our community can also empower people to volunteer and to help out where they can. It can also encourage people to seek support and advice should they need it. Sometimes life can be overwhelming and sometimes we need support to tackle issues such as mental health, homelessness, drug habits, domestic violence, unemployment or the death of a loved one. These organisations provide a range of vital services dedicated to helping the people of Longman. As someone who's also made it his mission to improve the lives of the people of Longman, I share their vision and passion, because we can always lend a helping hand to help someone in need, whether it's providing a vital service to the elderly or people living with disability, volunteering or checking in on your neighbour. True community spirit goes a long way, and Longman has this in abundance. I visited a lot of community groups in the Longman electorate and look forward to visiting more of these groups to see the critical services they provide and the passion that drives them to do the things that they do. I'm grateful to see so many wonderful organisations in the electorate that exist to support and help others. One community organisation I would like to speak about today is Caboolture Meals on Wheels. This group has resided in the same building on Hayes Street, Caboolture, in the Longman electorate for the last 40 years, and they've done amazing work to help and serve the community. They do this by providing healthy and nutritious meals to not only elderly residents or people with a disability but anyone who wants to receive this service or even use them for catering—even you or me. This service provides great benefits to the elderly, people with disability and others in need, because sometimes the only person an elderly resident will see all day or even all week is a friendly volunteer from Meals on Wheels ready to deliver their food and have a quick chat. This will make their day and is something they look forward to. Sometimes residents living with disability will not have the facilities they need to cook for themselves. This vital service ensures that they get the nutritious meals they need to get through the day. Caboolture Meals on Wheels also helps get people work-ready through Work for the Dole and volunteering. This can help get many people on the pathway to gaining employment and developing skills that will help them to retain and attain employment all while making a contribution to the community. On my recent visit I met many of these job hopefuls and volunteers, all led by their passionate leader, Rhondi McCosker. Caboolture Meals on Wheels is a shining example of what we need more of: kindness, compassion and determination to help people's lives get a little bit better, because you don't always know what people are going through. It's a toll it's taking, and you don't know their story. Australian Farmer of the Year Awards 86 10:23 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Susie and Gerard Daly, winners of the Australian Farmer of the Year Award as well as the Award for Excellence and Innovation. Susie and Gerard, along with their children, operate the Daly Potato Co. in Marion Bay, which is located near Dunalley on the south-east coast of Tasmania in my electorate. The Daly family has been farming potatoes in this area for more than 30 years. The combination of great soil, rain and sunshine has resulted in enormous growth and, as demonstrated by this much-deserved award, remarkable success. The Dalys now supply several thousand tonnes of washed potatoes, ready-to-eat dishes and, of course, vodka and gin to many major and boutique supermarkets. The ready-to-eat range, which includes flavoured potato salads and premade home-style meals, was established to minimise waste after up to 20 per cent of their crop was rejected by supermarkets for not being pretty enough. I know how they feel. Also, in an effort to minimise potato waste, they started the Hellfire Bluff Distillery, starting with a vodka made from potatoes grown on their farm. It has since expanded to include a range of very nice gins and liqueurs. My wife's personal favourite is the limoncello. This is value-adding at its finest, transforming low-value products and waste into premium Tasmanian product that is making its way in the world. The Daly family also represent some of the traits that we as Australians are so proud of: resilience and adaptability. The farm was originally for fine merino wool, but in lean times for wool years ago the family decided to diversify by planting spuds. They won a contract with Woolies, but in 2013 the Dunalley bushfires destroyed their farm and processing facilities, and they had to start again from scratch. What a wonderful job they've done in six years. This family is innovative. They recognise the value of Tasmanian produce, and their approach to sustainability and waste management is so responsible and has paid off in spades. Several hundred tonnes of oddly shaped or scratched potatoes were being used as cattle feed until Susie realised that they could serve in a more lucrative and delicious process. The enterprise has continued to rise since they planted their first potato crop more than 30 years ago. It was a crop that they anticipated would provide them with pocket money at the time, but it has now become their primary business. Congratulations to Susie, Gerald and the entire Daly family on a well-deserved award. Very quickly, congratulations to Sally Murfet, also from my electorate, recognised as Rural Consultant of the Year. Hooker, Aunty Mary 87 10:26 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Last week I joined our community to farewell a remarkable Australian. Aunty Mary Hooker passed away on 30 September 2019. Her funeral was held on the banks of Lake Windamere last Friday afternoon. Aunty Mary endured more than her fair share of hardship during her life. She suffered sexual abuse at the hands of a family member. One of the Stolen Generations, she was forcibly removed from her family as a child. She was sent to the now infamous Ormond Training School at Thornleigh and then to Parramatta Girls Training School. As the royal commission into child sexual abuse was to hear, they were places of evil, where horrific crimes were committed. Aunty Mary was adamant that the nation know of these crimes, and she never gave up the quest to bring the criminals responsible to justice. She was courageous and determined that the truth be told. Her evidence to the royal commission shocked Australia. Yet, despite having gone through all of this and more, she refused to be consumed by hatred. In fact her life was marked by the love and compassion that she showed to others. A proud Bundjalung woman, she loved the Indigenous communities of Australia and was a strong advocate for Indigenous health and the vision-impaired. She was committed to reconciliation and bringing Australians together. I was privileged to spend time with Aunty Mary here at Parliament House during the National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse in October last year. A photograph of the moment she met the Prime Minister on the lawns of parliament that day was to take pride of place in her home. Aunty Mary was a woman of faith who lived the values she believed in. She loved her family and was extremely proud of all that they had achieved. She also loved Elvis and country music and had a terrific sense of humour. She was a talented artist. The achievements of her life were simply extraordinary. She inspired us and she was my friend. Aunty Mary made our community and our country a better place. She had a turbulent and traumatic early life, and the peace and tranquillity of Lake Windermere is a beautiful and fitting place for Aunty Mary to rest. Our condolences to her husband, Rodney, and also to Alan and Heather, Sarah, Chris, Tracey, Violet, Dylan, Darren, Jackson and Corey. Farewell, Aunty Mary. Those of us who had the privilege of knowing you will never forget you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH 87 GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH Address-in-Reply 87 10:29 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Granted that we live in the best country on earth, we all want the best outcomes for it. Every Australian had a stake in the result of the 18 May election. Over the years, the Liberals and Nationals have secured much for the future growth and wealth of this nation. Realising what was at risk on polling day, voters again placed their trust in the government. Great outcome that it was, there is still much work to be done. It does, however, feel like the refresh button has been pressed—a reset, a third-term government, but with a real purpose and a long-term vision. Not for a long time has there been such expectation on an administration, and we won't let people down. Australians had a distinct choice at the ballot box, and leading the National Party took me to many far-flung corners of this land. Every single community matters, and ensuring that the right infrastructure is built in the right places, especially in regional areas, was and remains a priority of mine and of the government. Things such as X-ray services in Port Macquarie ensure that people can get those important diagnostic images without having to drive hundreds of kilometres, that they can get those right in their local community; a pipeline at Mitiamo in Victoria; a bypass at Coffs Harbour; a convention centre at Keppel Bay at Yeppoon in Queensland; and an Aboriginal outreach for night-time support services in Alice Springs were all amongst the regional commitments made, and now they will be delivered. All 16 National Party House of Representatives seats were retained, a fact of which I'm particularly proud. National Party Senate representation also remained strong, with Perin Davey from New South Wales, Susan McDonald from Queensland and Sam McMahon from the Northern Territory joining Bridget McKenzie for Victoria and Matthew Canavan from Queensland in our upper house team. Deputy leader McKenzie is now Australia's 34th agriculture minister and the first female to hold that portfolio since it was first formed in 1925 as the Minister for Markets. I'm particularly pleased that we tripled our female representation, without quotas, in the election. That's even though the pollsters, the critics and even some in the national media were quick to write us off, as they always do. The Nationals, as we always do, persevered and we succeeded. Re-endorsing Nationals means a continued strong voice for rural, regional, remote, country and coastal Australians in the federal parliament. Nationals candidates successfully held two transitioning seats in which our party had retiring members, with Pat Conaghan succeeding Luke Hartsuyker in Cowper, and Dr Anne Webster taking over from Andrew Broad in Mallee, and I acknowledge the presence of the new member for Cowper in the chamber. In any electorate held by any party, transitioning a seat always makes for vulnerability. I know that the constituents in the seats of the new members for Cowper and Mallee will certainly benefit from their members' hard work, their diligence and their grounded representation. Centenary celebrations will be held next year for our party, which was first led by Tasmanian newspaper editor, William McWilliams. How far we have come in those 100 years! Over all of those decades, the Country Party, and now the Nationals, have never lost sight of what we are sent here to do: ensuring regional infrastructure and services are everything they should be, and indeed more. Leveraging off our strong position in the parliament, the Nationals have always fiercely championed the bush and the interests of those who live in country areas, and we'll continue to make that case in the 46th Parliament. Australians—8.8 million of them—who call the regions home would expect nothing less. So much of this nation's wealth—through agriculture and resources and through innovation, indeed—comes from the regions. Commonwealth expenditure on infrastructure over the next decade is now a record $100 billion, of which a third—rightly, appropriately and aptly—will be spent in regional Australia. All across the country, money will be spent on new roads, rail lines and airports and on ensuring that we get product from farm to fork quicker and get people to where they need to be safer and sooner. That is the government's pledge. Having the infrastructure Australians want, need, demand, expect and, perhaps most of all, deserve means having a balanced budget so that we can pay for it—living within our means. Economic growth, drought notwithstanding, has been achieved 28 years in a row, an outstanding effort. Rail is an important part of our plan to contribute to and grow prosperity to build a better future—remembering, certainly, the legacy of the late, great Tim Fischer. Inland Rail, that 1,700-kilometre corridor of commerce, will ensure that goods travel on double-stacked trains between Brisbane and Melbourne within 24 hours. That's a first. It's nation-building at its best. It's something that's been talked about since the 1890s, and we are delivering—the Nationals in government are delivering. Even our hardy rail pioneers would not have envisioned just what a difference Inland Rail will potentially make, with savings per tonne, originally costed at $10, now as high as $94 and at an average of $76. Access to and from regional markets, supply chain costs, reducing congestion—creating so many benefits for Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney and everywhere in between—and connecting communities to the world are all benefits of the Inland Rail. Never has there been a better or more appropriate time to do it, and that's what's actually happening right now, as we speak. Drought has had a profound and severe impact not just on our farmers but on small businesses and regional communities. We've been there, as Nationals in government, to assist the whole way through, and we will continue until the rains return—and they will return; they certainly will return. Large water infrastructure storages right down to pipeline projects will be part of the new National Water Grid, which I announced on 30 April. Mining, agriculture and urban water will benefit from this ramped-up push to build Australia's water capacity. To go back to Inland Rail: most importantly, Inland Rail is creating jobs now in construction, and there will be permanent employment when the line is fully functional from the mid-2020s. Cooperation is sought from states and territories as we embark on our ambitious dam-building program. Having the necessary water storage in the right catchments will help droughtproof the nation for the future. Already we've signed on to the north-east Tasmanian project, the Scottsdale dam, and Dungowan Dam in north-west New South Wales, near Tamworth. And we're raising the wall of Wyangala Dam in New South Wales by 10 metres, to 95 metres, which will increase that dam's capacity by 650 gigalitres. Environmental and cultural approvals will be done. But, once they're completed, we will need to get on with the job. Nothing will then stand in the way of making sure that we actually get these vital projects built. As I said, mining, agriculture and urban water will benefit from this ramped-up approach. Just consider this: even if job creation and agricultural output are anywhere close to what is anticipated or expected, they will be providing overall benefit not just to regional communities but, indeed, to the nation, increasing markets, opportunities and wealth in our regional areas. Can you imagine the success that's going to come from the Inland Rail? And our government will continue to fix mobile black spots, with already more than a thousand towers installed or on their way. Through the Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network for rural medical students, we are going to ensure that we address the shortage of country doctors. I'm especially proud of achieving this particular provision. It's something that I've talked about for nine years and, thankfully, it's now being done. Of course, when we do get re-elected we always need to remember those people who helped us get there. I certainly haven't forgotten the people who enabled me to do just that. First there are my wonderful branches throughout the Riverina, ably led by my campaign director, Barney Hyams. Barney has now saddled up twice to help me during election campaigns. I appreciate very much his efforts. I appreciate the indefatigable Gretchen and Richard Sleeman, grassroots members, as well as the more than 350 people who handed out three weeks of prepoll—perhaps two weeks too long, but we're all about convenience in this day and age. Of course, it is so important to have people on the ground willing to hand out for you. I know the member for Cowper would endorse those remarks, because he too had many, many hundreds of people ensuring that he was elected to this place. You always need a supportive family. I'm very fortunate to have my wife, Catherine—as I said in my maiden speech, my greatest ally but my fiercest critic, at times—and our children, Georgina, Alexander and Nicholas, and their partners, Daniel Bell, Jemma Yates and Lydia Grigg. Indeed, we're empty-nesters from this weekend, the first time for 28 years. They all helped out in the campaign and they know this: the Nationals and the government intend to succeed. The future of Australia depends on our successes in making sure that we deliver the infrastructure that is part of our $100 billion overall 10-year pipeline of investment and that we deliver the services that our nation, particularly our regional communities, need and deserve. When I talk about services, I'm talking about education, health and mobile phone technology. Those are the sorts of things that our country communities need to be on the same page with as our city cousins. Anyone who lives in the bush knows that. We produce and punch well above our weight when it comes to making sure that we've got regional activity happening—drought notwithstanding, and people are hurting at the moment. We have announced more changes to date for farm household assistance. We are certainly getting on with the job of making sure that we stand side by side, shoulder to shoulder, with our farmers and our regional communities. Drought doesn't just affect farmers; it also has a crippling effect on our regional communities. The rains will come and, when they do, prosperity will return. That said, the agriculture sector has produced $58 billion worth of goods and export opportunities over the past 12 months. Generally, it is around $60 billion. As Nationals in government, we want to build it up, and I know our regional Liberals are on board with this; indeed, the entire government is. We want to build up agriculture to a $100 billion industry. In this regard, we share the vision of the National Farmers Federation—that marvellous 40-year-old organisation—to build it up to $100 billion by 2030. We're putting in the plans and the processes to do just that. I know the Prime Minister was recently in America, where he announced $150 million for a space program. It received undue criticism, but the fact is that investing in space, in technology, in our future, is just going to help Australian businesses, because that's where the money is going. It's not going to America. It's not going to NASA. It's going to real, practical examples here on the ground and to businesses here in Australia. What space technology investment has done in the past is improve GPS technology such that our farmers are now able to plant their crops and strip their crops to the nearest centimetre. I can remember growing up on the land at Brucedale, and one way of getting out of spending hours and hours on the tractor was to go slightly out of the lines. My late father, Lance, used to go crook at that and say, 'If you can't do it, I'll do it myself.' One way of getting out of spending those hours behind the tractor wheel was to just slightly go out of the line every now and again, and that would ensure that you were relieved of your farming duties. I probably shouldn't admit that! Dear old dad was a stickler. He was absolutely pedantic and wanted to have everything as it should be and not to miss a single bit of unused land. The fact is that nowadays farmers have so much technology in their tractors, and they need that. They have the GPS technology, which enables them to get it down to the nearest centimetre, and they also should have good mobile phone technology. If there's one thing my communities tell me they want and need, it's good mobile phone technology. Whereas once upon a time, all wheat was sold as a single desktop operation, unfortunately many farmers tell me that's not in place anymore. But it does enable them, and it does require them, to then look further afield for market opportunities for both buying and selling. They do that these days by sitting behind the wheel of their tractor. They can be in touch with the world, whilst they get that precision in their cropping endeavours. I am very proud of what the National Party was able to achieve at the last election—despite the doomsayers and naysayers who wrote us off—appreciating the fact that there were some seats lost in the New South Wales election. We will endeavour—working as hard as we can, always—to win back those state seats of Murray, Barwon and Lismore. But I was very, very proud and pleased that all 16 seats held by the National Party federally were retained. When you look at seats in Queensland like Capricornia, Flynn and Dawson held by Michelle Landry, Ken O'Dowd and George Christensen, not only did those hardworking members retain their seats, they built on their margins from the last election. That not only endorsed them as hardworking local members, but it certainly gave the message to the people of Queensland that the LNP was doing the job it needed to do. I would like to think that on 31 October next year Deb Frecklington will become the next Premier of Queensland. Because if there's one thing I know, that is that Queensland needs an LNP government. Deb Frecklington cut her teeth in law in Coolamon, in the electorate of Riverina, so she has experience of the Riverina. She's a very good friend of mine and I wish her every success in the coming state elections next year in Queensland. We want to get on and build dams. We want to make sure that we get on and build the roads that we need. I don't care what it takes, in terms of making sure that we work with our state and territory governments—Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria or whatever the case may be. I want to work to build the infrastructure as part of our $100 billion pipeline. We don't want to be stymied by unnecessary impediments. We want to work with the bureaucracy. We will do that. We will continue to strive hard to build better roads and to build more dams. It's what the people want, it's what the people expect and it's what the people will get. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 90 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Veterans 90 10:48 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I'm pleased to support the third annual statement on veterans and their families today, and would like to recognise the Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel for his commitment to supporting the men and women who have served our nation. One of the great privileges of serving as the member for Boothby since 2016 has been working with my veterans community in my local area to ensure that veterans receive the support and the recognition that they deserve. I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the following local organisations and thank them for all that they do as fierce advocates for our veterans, as supporters of one another and supporters of the families of our veterans, and as the people who commemorate and remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, our safety, our freedom and our democracy. They are the Blackwood RSL; the Marion RSL; the Brighton RSL; the Plympton Glenelg RSL; the Plympton Veterans Centre; the Vietnam Veterans Federation SA Branch; the National Malaya & Borneo Veterans Association, South Australia & Northern Territory Branch; RSL Care SA; the Mitcham RSL; the Colonel Light Gardens RSL; and the William Kibby VC Veterans Shed. To all of these wonderful volunteers, I say thank you. The Morrison government is supporting our veterans in a range of ways. We have a particular focus on supporting veterans' wellbeing, mental health, housing and post-service employment. I'm particularly proud of our $30 million investment to establish a network of six new veterans wellbeing centres that will bring together key services for our veterans and their families. This includes the establishment of a centre at the repat hospital site at Daw Park in my community. Working together with the South Australian Marshall Liberal government and my local community, particularly my veterans community, we are reactivating this iconic site that the former state Labor government cruelly shut down so that once again it is a safe and caring place for our veterans and the broader community to receive the very best health care and support. We also want to help ex-service organisations to find veterans civilian jobs when they decide to finish their Defence service careers. We will be providing $16.2 million over four years to support non-profit organisations, including Soldier On, Team Rubicon and the state branches of the RSL, to deliver tailored, innovative support to help veterans find meaningful civilian employment. Through the Prime Minister's Veterans Employment Program, we have introduced the Veterans Employment Toolkit. This provides information to veterans on how to translate skills based on their Defence rank, prepare a resume and job application, prepare for interviews and adjust to the civilian workplace. As part of the program, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel announced the Veterans Employment Commitment last November, inviting businesses to make a public commitment to the employment of veterans. More than 150 organisations have signed this commitment, and almost 2,000 vacancies have been advertised on the government's jobactive website, flagging Defence Force experience as desired. Our Supporting Younger Veterans Grants Program has delivered more than $157,000 to Flinders University, in the heart of my electorate, in partnership with the William Kibby VC Veterans Shed, to develop a program to support younger veterans to undertake tertiary education. This program leads to improved pathways for younger veterans as they move into civilian life. Our government has also recognised the civilian doctors and nurses who served our nation alongside our ADF personnel during wartime. I note that, of course, nurses have taken a very active role in a range of combat zones throughout our history of military involvement in wars. Last year, after decades of fighting for recognition, our government extended the DVA gold card entitlement to the SEATO medical team who served during the Vietnam War. I worked closely with SEATO nurse and local Boothby resident Helen Taplin to secure this outcome and was able to gain a small insight into the rewarding and heartbreaking things she experienced in Vietnam. My local community is home to the Women's Memorial Playing Fields—an eight-hectare site that was established by Liberal Premier Sir Thomas Playford in 1953 as a memorial to the 21 nurses who were massacred on Radji Beach during World War II. Each year, we hold a ceremony to commemorate their service and remember their lives and their sacrifice. I'm incredibly proud to have secured a $500,000 grant to upgrade the memorial to commemorate the lives of these brave nurses and all female service personnel. The privileges and freedoms that we all enjoy as Australians are only possible because of the sacrifice and service of our veterans and Defence Force personnel. Our government is committed to supporting our veterans and their families and honouring their service and sacrifice for decades to come. To all who have served our nation, we thank you most sincerely. 10:53 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I would like to thank the Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel for his statement in the House yesterday and congratulate him on his re-election and reappointment into the role, a very special role. I also want to thank the minister for our recent meeting in relation to the wellbeing centre for Darwin and Palmerston and the rural areas of the Top End. I am appreciative of the chance I had to meet with him. I also want to thank him for recently visiting Darwin and Palmerston and talking to some veterans. I look forward to a further meeting with the veterans' affairs minister when the opportunity arises so that we can follow up on the feedback he received during that visit. To echo the minister's speech yesterday, it is far from the case that everyone leaving the ADF is broken, busted or doing badly. The truth is that for the vast majority of people serving in the ADF it is an overwhelmingly positive experience. I'm sure I speak for those former members of the Defence Force opposite who have served our country when I say that for the overwhelming majority of individuals it's a great experience going back into the broader community and showing all those great skills, attributes and knowledge gained, and how that service to our country can continue in different ways in the national interest. That transition into civilian life, although it can be stressful—and I'm sure we've all had times when we've experienced difficulties during that transition—can have the resilience that I think individuals gain in the ADF, and so the overwhelming majority of former defence personnel are able to transition back into civilian life well. For those who aren't able to make that transition as well, we should be doing everything possible to assist them, and I note some of the policies and programs that the minister mentioned yesterday which are aiming to assist that transition. The Northern Territory is an important strategic location for defence and it continues to make a very substantial contribution to the NT economy, not only through direct and indirect employment but also through the demand for local goods and services that the defence organisation has. Defence personnel contribute substantially to our population and also contribute substantially to the turnover that we have in population in the Northern Territory. That comes with some challenges, but I like to think that in the Northern Territory we all work together to mitigate the sometimes negative effects of that turnover. Overwhelmingly, they enrich our community. It's estimated that the NT's total defence population, including the families, is around 12,000 people, and, at the time of publishing, the last DVA annual report listed over 3,000 DVA clients in the Northern Territory, including myself. I note that, in his speech yesterday, the minister referenced a number of initiatives, as I mentioned, and Labor supports all policies that improve the lives of veterans. But I do urge the minister and those opposite to consider some of the policies that we took to the last election. They were announced after exhaustive consultation with the veterans community and I'm happy to talk to any of those opposite about those policies. I think that a veterans employment program and assisting people into work is one of the most important things that we can do. Homelessness, unemployment and underemployment are all serious issues that, as I mentioned, are interrelated and require our immediate attention. I just want to mention that the recent report undertaken by WithYouWithMe listed the unemployment rate of veterans at about 30 per cent, and underemployment at 19 per cent. These figures are concerning and we should be doing all that we can to assist members transitioning out of service for our nation. 10:58 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling As did the minister, when he provided his statement, I begin by acknowledging in this place all those who have served in the Australian Defence Force and their families, including the members for Solomon and Herbert, who are here in the chamber today. I acknowledge also those service men and women, and their families, across Australia on this day. I am delighted to speak on this third annual ministerial statement on veterans and their families, and I feel uniquely qualified in this space because both myself and my wife, Peta, are veterans, and we have three children, two of whom were born whilst we were still both serving in the Australian Regular Army. To help illuminate some of the challenges that families face, I thought I'd start by sharing a personal story. In our first year of married life my wife and I spent a grand total of nine weeks together, which brought its own challenges, although we reckon one upside was that every time we did see each other, it was a bit like another honeymoon. Moving forward to the following year, we somehow managed to fall pregnant with what became our first child, and we were posted to Darwin. In that same year I was posted as a young platoon commander across to East Timor. Whilst I was away on that deployment to East Timor we were posted to Townsville, which meant that, whilst I was away, my eight-months pregnant wife needed to move in the Darwin tropical heat on her own, with no family support, from Darwin to Townsville. When Peta got to Townsville and was busily carrying boxes down to the storage room underneath our accommodation, which I still hadn't seen, a storm came through and the basement area flooded, which meant that all our boxes of clothing, including all the baby clothing that was there in preparation, was flooded and ruined. So there was my wife, eight months pregnant, in the stifling Townsville heat, having just moved house by herself, dealing with an insurance claim and about to have our first child. Two weeks later, it was Christmas Eve and Peta was sitting in midnight mass in the church in Townsville when she started having contractions. She raced out to the hospital and bore our first child on Christmas Day. My mother-in-law made it across from Perth to Townsville just in time to cut the cable ceremoniously, with me on the end of a satellite phone on the border between Indonesia and East Timor. That's just one story, and I thought I'd never be forgiven for it. Funnily enough, I was forgiven and I get in more trouble nowadays for forgetting to unpack the dishwasher. Thankfully, we did recover. I thought I'd share that story. It's only one story of a great many stories, in fact, of tens of thousands of challenging stories that occur every day, in which veterans and their husbands, wives, partners and of course children manage complexity and challenging circumstances. Let me now touch on another issue that is very important to veterans and their families, which is the circumstances of transition. Just as enlistment and basic training are important in the ADF, transition back into civilian life is extremely important. Every year, 5½ thousand people transition out of defence and back into civilian life. This government is investing so heavily in transition support so that, regardless of the time that a member has served, members can access coaching, including career planning; full service documentation; skills recognition; and resume preparation, as well as job search programs and financial literacy education. It's important to note that it is not just the government who are supporting veterans and their families during transition. There are some amazing organisations who are also providing support. One of those is the veterans transition centre in Jarrahdale, in my electorate of Canning in my home state of Western Australia. It is situated in a natural bush setting, nestled in the Darling Ranges on about 42 acres. It is only 45 minutes from the CBD of Perth, but it provides an amazing bush retreat for veterans and their families. Here there are 20 A-frame log cabins, a communal hall, a kitchen area, barbecue facilities and an outdoor fire area. It's a place where veterans and their families can visit for planned, as well as unplanned, activities. I was really pleased that Minister Chester visited just Friday a week ago and was able also to see firsthand one of the activities that were underway. This activity was being conducted by an organisation called The Younger Heroes. The mission of Younger Heroes is to strengthen families. Younger Heroes run a three-day physical and psychological training camp designed to reconnect veterans and those who've served the nation with their children and to build resilience in those relationships through shared effort and open communications. I was really pleased that my wife, Peta, and our three children, were also participants in this Younger Heroes camp. It was quite timely having the minister, my wife and three kids all there on the same day. My wife reported back to me afterwards that it was an amazing experience, being there with our three teenage children, reconnecting in that bush setting, with some planned and unplanned activities, along with other veterans and their kids. An honourable member interjecting— Mr CONNELLY 282984 Thank you. She does indeed. They're some of the wonderful things that are happening in the transition space. Some are driven by government and some by the passion that others share for supporting veterans and their families. Let me touch briefly also on employment. The member for Solomon very rightly pointed out, as did the minister, that the vast majority of our veterans leave Defence happy, healthy and with an amazing set of skills. When they transition into civilian life, these skills can brought to bear for the success of business organisations. Smart Australian businesses realise this and they hire ex-ADF men and women, to access their unmatched experience and skills in leadership, in discipline and, of course, in successful teamwork. Today, I call on all Australian employers to take the lead from other great organisations, including my own former employer, Woodside Petroleum, and tap into the veteran skill pool. This government is committed to caring for those who have served our country, as well as their loved ones. All Australians can be rightly proud that the government spends more than $11½ billion a year to support veterans and their families. I look forward to continuing to advocate for and support our veterans and their families, to all of whom we remain incredibly grateful and proud. 11:07 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert I rise to take this opportunity to respond to the Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel's annual statement on veterans and their families. I acknowledge the member for Stirling and his partner and thank them for their service. I would also like to thank every member of parliament for their service, as well as everyone around Australia who has served our nation so proudly. I take a deep interest in this area. Not only am I a veteran myself but I represent the largest garrison city in the country, the city of Townsville. There are more than 5,000 regular and continuous full-time service personnel in my electorate, plus more than 2½ thousand spouses and around 3,000 children in Defence Force families. They're just the current figures for those serving at the moment, but there are far more than that still living in Townsville who have left the armed forces. How many exactly? That's a good question, which unfortunately is difficult to answer. We don't know exactly how many veterans there are living in our community, and that's why I very much welcome the minister's commitment to support a question in the 2021 census regarding ADF service. As the minister said, the data would help DVA and ex-service organisations to improve and better target services and support, particularly to the large portion of veterans who are currently unknown to DVA. An issue coming to light recently in my community of Townsville is the number of veterans who are experiencing homelessness. Fortunately, there are organisations out there providing emergency accommodation to veterans who are in need. But I hope that this move to gather more statistical information on exactly how many people may be in this category will be helpful to address these issues. There is also a role for state government to be more transparent about where it spends its federal money on homelessness—$319.8 million goes into Queensland. The more informed we are, the better outcomes will be and the better we can all work together. I want to highlight, in particular, the minister's comments with regard to the families of veterans, because we know that, when a veteran leaves the Defence Force or loses their life, it's the families who are left to either support their loved one or readjust to life without them. It's my opinion that spouses of our current and formerly serving Defence Force personnel are the backbone of our community. They play an integral role in supporting their loved ones. Whether people are unwell or whether they're just fine, their spouses need to be acknowledged for their contribution to the community. My wife—my rock and my best friend—played an integral role in getting me better and back on my feet, and getting me to have meaningful engagement and meaningful employment. I think that's great, and I acknowledge the establishment of the Female Veterans and Veterans' Families Forum and the work of the Council for Women and Families United by Defence Service. This is something that will shape how we do business. It is something that will shape how we in this place will better support and serve the communities we represent. Just yesterday I met with Rhondda Vanzella, the state president of the War Widows Guild of Australia, New South Wales, and the director, Gwen Cherne, both strong women who know firsthand the battles and challenges I'm talking about. I was so impressed by and thankful for the hard work they are doing to support families who have lost those most dear to them. They highlighted the need for more mental health clinicians to support both serving and ex-serving personnel and their families through mental illness. There is always more we can do when we talk about mental illness and suicide prevention. I know that on all sides of the House we want to be working in the one direction to support our men and women of the Australian Defence Force. Rhondda and Gwen also indicated a desire for support agencies to be notified of the names and contacts of widows who have lost a loved one so they can ensure that wraparound services are provided as soon as possible, in a compassionate and sensitive way. I believe that is something that would be very well accepted throughout the veteran community. Halfway through this year a serving sergeant from the 1st Battalion died by suicide. While the services were there to help the spouse, I believe that notifying reasonable and responsible services so they can provide wraparound services is something that would help people deal with situations of grief that I can't even imagine. In Townsville we have a suicide prevention measure called Operation Compass. The Townsville suicide prevention trial is one of the Australian government's 12 national suicide prevention trial sites that are gathering evidence on how to better prevent suicide at a local level and in high-risk populations. The Townsville trial is being led by the North Queensland Primary Health Network and has received funding of $4 million over four years. Compass focuses specifically on veterans of the Australian Defence Force and their families in the Townsville region. Operation Compass has identified a number of priority areas for the trial: improving emergency and follow-up care for suicidal crisis; improving the competency and confidence of frontline workers to deal with suicidal crisis; promoting help-seeking, mental health and resilience; and training the community, families and carers to recognise and respond to suicidality. There are fantastic organisations around the country, and Operation Compass plays an integral role. I'd also like to acknowledge Swiss8, which is a new charity that I've been fortunate enough to be made patron of. It's run by Adrian Sutter and Anthony Meixner. It's a phone app about the key pillars in someone's life. It talks about what you should be eating, healthy lifestyle, physical exercise, and getting out and being engaged. I think it's important that organisations and charities like this do come up, because they provide meaningful engagement. I'm a big believer in meaningful engagement and meaningful employment, because I think that's how we're going to lower the very high rates of suicide. It's okay not to be okay. It's okay to have a bad day. It's okay to have mental illness. But what I want to tell everyone is: if you're not doing well, there are places where you can seek help; there are places you can go to speak to a professional. I'm not a clinician. I don't give advice; I can only give information. I believe we need to lower the stigma associated with mental illness and suicide. Doing that is about speaking about it. If I can stand here, at the highest level of government, and say that I've had bad days and I was diagnosed with PTSD, and there are avenues you can take to seek meaningful engagement and employment and get on the right track and get the help you need, I think everyone should be able to talk about it. It doesn't matter what political party you're in or where you sit in the world, we all work together. This is above politics. We think, in this place, that every life matters and everyone should be able to live their life well and— An honourable member: Absolutely. Mr THOMPSON 281826 Exactly, 'absolutely'. I look forward to working with my side of politics and the other side of politics, because, with mental illness and suicide prevention, we need to be lowering the stigma and working together so people can live a fulfilling life. Debate adjourned. GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH 94 GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH Address-in-Reply 94 11:15 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I rise to speak about the challenge of joblessness and poverty in Australia. This week is Anti-Poverty Week, and many community organisations are doing their best to help tackle the scourge of social disadvantage in Australia and to help reduce the rate of child poverty, which is too high in Australia. There is, however, a difference in the philosophy that the two sides of parliament take towards joblessness. Those on the conservative side are more likely to refer to jobseekers as 'leaners' and to criticise them for not trying hard enough. We on the progressive side of politics recognise that the unemployment rate is, to a large extent, a function of the number of jobs that are available. If you go to Britain or to Germany or to the United States or to New Zealand, you'll find an unemployment rate that is around four per cent. That's the unemployment rate that the Reserve Bank of Australia thinks is possible in Australia and which would be consistent with starting to get wages growing again and starting to get inflation moving back into the target band. Yet, in Australia, we have a government that seems comfortable with an unemployment rate that sits above five per cent and has done so throughout the period in which the government has been in office. That means that there are hundreds of thousands of Australians who, if we had the same unemployment rate as the countries I've named—Britain, New Zealand, the United States and Germany—would have a job, but in Australia do not. There are other consequences of unemployment being too high. When unemployment is too high it means that we don't get wage growth. Over the past six years, real wages have grown at just 0.7 per cent a year. In the six years before that, which was a period spanning the global financial crisis, real wages grew at 1.8 per cent annually. We've seen a significant wages slowdown, and part of that's been due to poor productivity, declining union membership rates, wage theft scandals, penalty rates and Public Service wage caps. We need more action in order to reduce the unemployment rate. When the unemployment rate comes down, it becomes more difficult for employers to indulge in racist or sexist discrimination. It is harder to be a discriminatory employer when there is more competition in the labour market. When the unemployment rate is low, people with disabilities and new migrants are more likely to be able to find a job. When the unemployment rate is low, you get pressure on wages—that pressure which the Reserve Bank governor has acknowledged is sorely needed, which has been highlighted in reports from the OECD and the International Monetary Fund. Independent reports from Deloitte have highlighted the problems in the Australian economy and the fact that those problems are, to a large extent, homegrown. Yet the government seems to be stubbornly sticking to its talking points, pretending as though we don't have a joblessness problem in Australia. The fact is that, for every available job in Australia, there are four people looking for work. For every job opening, there are four people looking for work. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:19 to 11 : 40 Dr LEIGH BU8 In South Australia, there are nine jobseekers competing for each available job. In Tasmania, there are 14 jobseekers competing for every available job. Research by Anglicare Australia Network has found a decline in the share of jobs that did not require qualifications and did not require work experience. In 2006, 22 per cent of jobs were available to someone with no qualifications and no work experience. Now, just 10 per cent of vacancies don't require qualifications or work experience. For low-skilled Australians, there are fewer opportunities than ever before. In the context of Anti-Poverty Week, it's worth acknowledging too some of the recent findings on inequality and disadvantage. The International Monetary Fund in a recently released report looked at the gap between well-off regions and struggling regions across 22 countries. Australia was ranked fourth-worst behind only the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic and Canada for the gap between our best off and worst off regions. If you take countries such as Japan and France, which have small regional gaps, the richest areas are about 35 per cent better off than the poorest. But in Australia, our richest areas, parts of Sydney and Melbourne, are at least twice as well off as poorer areas such as regional Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. The research has found that the gap between rich and poor was growing between regions, as we have seen inequality grow more broadly for Australia and across advanced countries. A report by Alvis Consulting on behalf of the St Vincent de Paul Society looked at electricity disconnections and found that too had been increasing. That is no surprise, given that we know that energy costs for households have been rising significantly, due in part to the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's lack of an energy policy. They found when they adjusted disconnections for population, that the postcodes that had the highest number of disconnections were those that were more disadvantaged. Populations in rural areas, with more older Australians, low-income communities, were more likely to have the electricity cut off. This has massive impacts for households and can have damaging impacts, particularly for children in those households. When the power is cut off, food spoils, families aren't able to do the washing and kids aren't able to do their homework at night. So electricity disconnections are a manifestation of the social disadvantage that we see in Australia. We need to get the wages going again. We need to get employment going again. One of the challenges of getting wages going is constraints on job mobility. Simple economics tells us that if you have a dozen wage offers, you are more likely to get a higher wage than if you're stuck with a single option. That's why people in big cities tend to earn more than those stuck in one-company towns. It's why employees who move firms get a bigger pay bump than those who stay put. Last year, Princeton economists Alan Krueger and Orley Ashenfelter uncovered a disturbing way that the United States firms had prevented job switching, and that was clauses in franchise agreements that made it hard for workers to move between outlets in the same chain. When they looked at a database of franchise agreements, fully 58 per cent of franchise agreements contained so-called 'no-poach' clauses—clauses which barred franchisees from enticing workers to change stores. That included US franchise chains Burger King, Jiffy Lube and H&R Block. I was intrigued by these findings, so I wrote to some of the largest Australian franchises to ask whether their standard agreements included no-poach clauses. It turned out that at least three did: McDonald's, Bakers Delight and Domino's wrote back to me to say that their standard clauses prevent franchisees from hiring workers who were working at other stores. Let me read to the House the text of the agreement that McDonald's franchisees must sign up to. It says: Neither Licensee nor Principal shall employ or seek to employ any person who is at the time employed by McDonald's or by Licensor or by any of the subsidiaries or associated or related companies of McDonald's or Licensor or by any person who is at the time operating a McDonald's restaurant, or otherwise induce, or attempt to induce, directly or indirectly, such person to leave such employment. It's a complicated clause with a simple impact for McDonald's workers: they can't get poached away for a better wage by another chain. That puts downward pressure on the wages of workers at McDonald's, a significant employer in the Australian labour market. I have to give credit to McDonald's, Bakers Delight and Domino's, who at least replied to my request as to whether their franchise agreements contained no-poach clauses. Two franchises—Subway and 7-Eleven—said their agreements did not, but we don't have the necessary details to know what other franchises do. But we do know that franchising accounts for a significant portion of the economy. According to a report from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, franchising accounts for nine per cent of the Australian economy. We also know that job switching has declined markedly. Treasury's research shows that the rate of job switching has declined by about a third since the start of the century. None of this is to blame workers, but the research by the late Alan Krueger and Orley Ashenfelter, and my own findings for Australia, suggest that structural forces are moving against workers—that no-poach clauses are one way in which downward pressure is placed on wages by impediments on workers moving firms. I call on those franchise chains—McDonald's, Bakers Delight and Domino's—to scrap no-poach clauses. Following the release of the Krueger and Ashenfelter research in the United States, state attorneys-general began investigating whether no-poach clauses were anticompetitive. Very quickly, a number of US franchise chains announced that they would scrap no-poach clauses, but that has not yet occurred in Australia. These chains—and, potentially, others—have no-poach clauses at the moment, which means that tens of thousands of employees are affected. The three chains I mentioned—McDonald's, Bakers Delight and Domino's—have between them over 2,000 franchise stores, and are significant employers of low-skilled labour. We should also shine a spotlight on franchise agreements elsewhere. It is not appropriate to 21st-century transparency that standard franchise agreements are kept secret. To the extent that they bar employees from starting a competing firm and to the extent that they bar employers from hiring workers from another franchise chain, we need better oversight of what these franchise agreements say. Healthy competition for workers is good for wages, and if we want to get more rapid wage growth then we need more opportunities for workers to seek out a better-paying job. These chains should do the right thing immediately, and should get rid of these clauses from their agreements. I promise to them that if they do not, I shall continue raising the issue in this place. I turn finally to the issue of poverty and disadvantage right here in the ACT. Outsiders often think of Canberra as being a city without poverty, but that is far from the truth. In the ACT the winters are cold, and housing affordability can be a challenge, so it's a tough place to be without a job and a tough place to need more income support. I held a roundtable with heads of a range of local community sector organisations on 4 October. I thank representatives of ACOSS, YWCA, Volunteering ACT, MARSS, Vinnies, Companion House, Anglicare and GIVIT for joining me for that important conversation. We discussed the issues of overlapping disadvantage, challenges around disability and incarceration, and the way in which housing affects so many other aspects of the lives of low-income Canberrans. There is a recognition among these organisations of the need to innovate. On 8 October I held another breakfast with young social entrepreneurs. I thank C Moore, Ashleigh Streeter-Jones, Caitlin Figueiredo, Josh Gonzalez, Jarret Anthoney, Julia Faragher, Sophie Fisher, Nip Wijewickrema, Dhani Gilbert, and Jenna Allen for joining me for that conversation. It was focused on what philanthropically funded organisations can do to target poverty and disadvantage and how these organisations can fill gaps that may emerge in social disadvantage. The work that's been done by Jenna Allen for the Take One, Leave One project, recognises that in a cold winter it is important to provide low-income people and homeless people with a coat that they feel comfortable in, that they will be proud to wear, that will keep them warm on a cold Canberra night. The work that Sophie Fisher does with Girls on Bikes ACT recognises that, particularly for migrant communities, it is important to provide bicycles and learn-to-ride lessons to be a part of the Canberra community, a city with as many bike paths as any other part of Australia. So the work that is being done by these social entrepreneurs makes us a stronger and more connected community. Finally, I must conclude with a plug. For the last decade, Vinnies ACT has been coming to this building to hold a barbecue. This was an event auspiced by Jenny Macklin, the former member for Jagajaga. With her departure from the parliament at the last election, I have taken over the coordination of the Vinnies barbecue, which this year will be held on 5 December. We would welcome to the Vinnies barbecue any members of parliament, their staff and the press gallery. Joining us at the Vinnies barbecue on 5 December is a simple way of showing that you want to help deal with poverty in the Canberra community. It's a way of showing your commitment to social justice and a way to get a photo with Father Christmas, to enjoy a sandwich with parliamentary colleagues and to turn a snag on the barbecue with the great Vinnies volunteers. The Vinnies barbecue will be supported too by the members for Bean and Canberra and by Senator Gallagher. It is a terrific community event in which the Vinnies workers in Canberra come into the parliament. We make a modest donation, and they serve us a terrific sausage sandwich lunch to get us through that final sittings week. Come along and join us in the usual courtyard. Do your bit to show your commitment to building a stronger, more socially connected Canberra and to a great community organisation in Vinnies. 11:54 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It's my honour to rise in the chamber and to respond to the Governor-General's speech. Can I say at the outset how deeply honoured I am to be returned as the member for Wright, representing an electorate that is arguably one of the most diverse in our nation. In the north, we have the Lockyer Valley—a soil-rich region that is feeding not only this country but also many other countries around the world. In the east are the western suburbs of Logan, which is home to some of the most multiculturally diverse communities and which is experiencing rapid growth, with emerging populations and the old townships adapting to those changes. In the south is the beautiful Scenic Rim, enclosed by stunning mountain ranges and sprawling hills and featuring the best of rural living. It is bordered by the Gold Coast hinterland. All of these are areas which I have the privilege to represent. I want to place on record my humble appreciation to the people of Wright. They are a hardworking, resilient community and I appreciate the trust they have placed in me, returning me to this place as their representative for a fourth term. There are hundreds of people that helped me in the last election in my role as the member for Wright. They largely consist of a team or a bank of volunteers. These people help not only at election time but all year, every year. Many people have done so since 2010. They ensure their communities are heard by providing direct feedback to me, and they represent me at functions and community events when I am on other business and unable to attend. Whilst time doesn't permit me to acknowledge all of them, there are some that I do want to acknowledge in particular. My Wright federal division council, or FDC, chair is a gentleman by the name of Matt Enright. He is an amazing operator. The work he does and the commitment and loyalty he shows, not only to our party but to the re-election cause, are second to none. I acknowledge his contribution, along with that of the deputy chair, Glenn Pavey, from the Lockyer Valley, who gets through a power of work. I acknowledge Julian Creighton, chair of the Tamborine Mountain branch; Ian Pocock, chair of the Fassifern branch; Rod and Lloyd Venz for the work they did across the entire electorate; and the entire membership of the Liberal National Party in Wright—I owe them a deep sense of gratitude. In addition, three predominant state seats sit within my electorate—there are five if you count those on the periphery. I want to acknowledge Jon Krause, the state member for Scenic Rim, for the work he did during the campaign; in particular, Jimmy McDonald, the member for Lockyer; and Ros Bates, the member for Mudgeeraba. They are all doing a power of work in their communities. I want to congratulate Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, and Deputy Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party Josh Frydenberg for the leadership that they showed during the election campaign. They ran an exceptional campaign and spoke to the issues confronting everyday Australians and families, not only across my electorate but across the entire country. Just before the election, the Australian people were stunned by some of the comments coming from those in the media gallery. Paul Bongiorno, in particular, made comment in The Daily News: … even the best "political pamphlets" don't mean much if the voters believe its authors will not be around long enough to translate words into action. As politicians, if there's a slip-up or mistake, we are hauled over the coals and lambasted in the press for the most minor things. But, when there is such misrepresentation—180 degrees—and they are getting stories wrong, it seems to go unmentioned. In The Spectator, Terry Barnes wrote: Alas, though, in itself this budget it won't be enough to avoid a Coalition electoral catastrophe. The press gallery had written us off, but the people disagreed. Headlines rolled off the presses, denigrating the government's chances. If the Australian people had believed what they were reading in the newspaper and hearing on televisions and seeing on social media from those tasked with reporting our national politics, they would have been forgiven for thinking the election had already been won. One headline, on 28 November, read, 'Apocalypse now: stench of panic grips Liberals'. An article written by Charis Chang was headlined, 'It's going to be a bloodbath: 20 MPs facing the chop'. Where are the journos now? They're like crickets. Another one, from Crikey, said, 'How the states will shape a landslide coalition loss'. Anyway, I've made my point in that regard. I will take the opportunity to remind the House that it is the Australian people who decide the government and that these things are never predetermined. The 2019 election should be a reminder to all of the commentariat that the Australian people, the silent majority, have spoken. I will never forget the night when senators from the opposition ranks and an ABC commentator sat there gobsmacked as the results rolled in. I acknowledge the work the Prime Minister did in this space, particularly his summing up, when he said: We believe in choice. And because of that, it means we believe in our future. We are an optimistic, we are a passionate, and we are an ambitious people, full of aspiration, for ourselves, for our families, and of course for our great nation, for all of us. That is what we believe as Liberals. Our plan, my plan for this country is for an even stronger Australia. That was from Prime Minister Scott Morrison, and I commend his plan. The trust that my electorate has placed in me means that I need to continue to deliver. I have delivered for my electorate, but there is more to do. I draw the attention of everyone to the times I have brought to the electorate none other than the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister, more recently to the opening of the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing. It is a magnificent piece of road infrastructure which will create safety and road efficiencies and allow trucks to move from the western side of Toowoomba through to the port of Brisbane, removing up to 18 sets of traffic lights from their journey. They will be able to move freely through there now on a B grade of six per cent. It's an amazing piece of engineering infrastructure, and I commend the builders, Nexus, who completed that task, which is Australia's largest inland road infrastructure project, whose opening I was proud to attend. My people will be the beneficiary of that piece of infrastructure. More recently, over in the Lockyer Valley, I had the opportunity to swing past Stanbroke abattoir and say hello to the 600 workers and management there. It is a little, unsung hero in the electorate. Thank you for the work that you're doing in employing those people in that community. SCT is another organisation that the federal government has partnered with. We provided up to $10 million for a world-class intermodal rail hub at Beaudesert, employing up to 1,100 people through construction and a permanent workforce that's relocated from Acacia Ridge down to our community of Beaudesert. We welcome all of you and the infrastructure and the economic benefit that goes with that project. Those projects go ahead because we have a plan and a vision for the future. The electorate of Wright is a wonderful place to live and to do business. It's an extraordinary place to raise a family. We're not strangers to devastation from flood and other natural disasters. We had a hailstorm go through Warrill View last year. I was fortunate enough to raise a million dollars from our Treasury to appropriate to farmers, who, on the day before they were going to harvest their crop—their corn, their beans, their beetroot, their onions—were wiped out. It was like a slasher had gone through the paddocks and mown them down—not even the trash was visible. It had been spread across many hundreds of acres. I was able to secure some money and help those people recover some of the cost they had incurred in planting that crop, fertilising it and watering it. Hopefully that will keep them afloat until this year so they can replant and rebuild and then continue making a contribution to the local economy and the greater food security of our country. We have some of the best education facilities in the country. The Lockyer Valley is home to the Gatton campus of the University of Queensland, where there is a veterinary faculty where we're training Australia's next wave of veterinary surgeons coming through. I commend all those people who come to our electorate and are able to experience the beauty and diversity of our nation through horticulture, through our dairy farming sector and through our agricultural sector. We have two sets of beef selling yards in the electorate, at Silverdale and Beaudesert. It was hard to understand a recent decision where the electorate was not considered to have enough agriculture to qualify for drought assistance. We're continuing to invest more money in our hospitals through the states. We're investing record amounts of money in health and education. Never before has the government committed this much money to health and education, and we are committed to continuing to invest more money in both of those areas. Staying with natural disasters, we also had bushfires up in the back of Canungra, where we lost the iconic Binna Burra Lodge. I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister and his gorgeous wife, who travelled into the Gold Coast. We secured choppers because the place was virtually shut down by the Air Force and flew over the affected area, and then landed. The Prime Minister and emergency services personnel were able to see firsthand the level of devastation that had unfolded in that area. They met with members of the local communities and were able to see firsthand the effect that losing every worldly possession would have on a family, and hear how that rebuilding process would start. As a community, I know we will put our arms around those families that have lost and suffered. We've done it before; we will do it again. I praise God that we had no loss of life, unlike during the 2010 floods where we had many, many lives lost. We have our challenges in the electorate. We have two other businesses, called AJ Bush and Gelita. AJ Bush is a renderer that takes meat waste, such as blood, from the meatworks and butcher shops around the states. Gelita is a large company that also takes a lot of that scrap and makes it into gelatin. When you take a capsule or a tablet that you've bought from the pharmacy, often that gelatin outer coating around the medicine is made in Beaudesert. Gelita sells their product to pharmaceutical companies. Both of those operations are reliant on coal-fired base-load power. They are very energy reliant. I want to share with the parliament the challenges that both of those organisations have. They've both been longstanding customers of a company called New Hope up in Queensland, which runs the mine at Acland. The Labor Queensland government has chosen not to approve stage 3 of the mine. If these two operations don't have reliable energy sources, they will shut. These two businesses employ potentially 150 people between them. The flow-on effect upstream on a couple of thousand businesses and a couple of thousand workers will be enormous. We are trying to secure coal for them from other localities so that they can continue doing the amazing work they do. These are two amazing businesses, but we have many others. I've got a little organisation up on Tamborine Mountain called Outland Denim. They manufacture jeans. Most people don't even know where Tamborine Mountain is; it's in the Gold Coast hinterland. This little organisation is building denim jeans in Cambodia. They are helping people get out of sweatshops and paying them great money. Meghan Markle, our new favourite royal, is wearing those jeans on the world stage. It's a great push along for that business. We've got a camel farm called Summer Land Camels that is selling camel feta, moisturisers and nutraceutical products. They're cutting edge and they're exporting products all around the world. There is Stanbroke, which I mentioned earlier, and SCT, the rail hub operators. We have a world-class motocross bike park where people from all around the south-east corner bring their families to engage in the sport of motocross over many different styles of bike tracks. We've got world-class facilities for our rowers at Wyaralong Dam. In the south-east corner at the moment, we are hopeful that we'll be able to secure the future Olympic bid and put the Olympic rowing activities down at Wyaralong. We have a waterskiing park at Cables, just over on the Gold Coast, which is doing amazing things. And we've got rainforest walks with suspended ropes, and skyline walks up on Mount Tamborine. We have some of the most amazing microbreweries, where you can enjoy a flat lemonade on a hot day! Some of the eclectic ingredients that they're using in some of these microbreweries are very inviting, and I encourage all those considering a weekend away to consider the electorate of Wright, and in particular the Scenic Rim. Of course, once a year the Scenic Rim hosts their Eat Local Week campaign. Strangely enough, it goes for a month, and the hotels and restaurants in Brisbane and the Gold Coast which source their products locally from these businesses bring their businesses and their clients out to these locations. They set up flash mobile restaurants where the city folk can come to enjoy and experience the delightful flavours of the Senate Rim. I just want to acknowledge the amazing contribution that the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has made and his continued commitment to a very well-thought-out and structured plan. You only have to grab a copy of the Governor-General's address to the House to see how comprehensive our plan is. For those who may not have heard it, that comprehensive plan spoke at length about the strength of our economy and the tax reforms that are desperately needed. We've moved on some of those, but there is more to do. It spoke about the regulatory reforms in industrial relations that we need to undergo. It spoke about our track record on jobs and the targets that we've set ourselves into the future, in making sure that every Australian has the opportunity to have a job, because the greatest gift we can give someone on welfare is a job. The plan spoke about the importance of job security, and how that translates to home security. It spoke about our infrastructure rollout plan—$100 billion. That's an unprecedented amount; never has Australia had a point in its history where we have invested more in infrastructure than we are at the moment. That's $100 billion over the next decade. It spoke about our plan for health, and I have already touched on our unprecedented health budget. It spoke about mental health and the enormous task that's in front of us with reference to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I acknowledge the minister, the member for Fadden, who is doing amazing work in that space. The plan also included our plan for defence, both for those serving today and of course our veterans. It spoke about the security of our nation and about our foreign policy, and the need to ensure that we continue to pursue free trade agreements into the future. It spoke about energy security, climate change and the environment, and the protection of our Great Barrier Reef. It spoke about regional and rural Australia, Indigenous Australians and older Australians. It spoke about online and cybercrime, and the safety of our nation and children. In closing, it is a privilege for me to serve in this place. I walk up to this House in the mornings, whenever the weather permits. Next year I will celebrate my 10th year here, and as I walk up I never tire of looking up and seeing the flag above this building. It's a great sense of patriotism and a great sense of nationalism. My other half suggests to me that the day that I lose that sense of pride is the day that I should give this job away. Debate adjourned. CONDOLENCES 100 CONDOLENCES Forbes, Dr Alexander James 100 12:14 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker It is my great honour to rise in this place today to pay tribute to the former member for Barker, Dr Alexander James Forbes. The Hon. Alexander James Forbes—or 'Jim' to almost everyone I've ever met—served as the member for Barker from 1956 to 1975. Like everyone in this place, I feel a great privilege of being a member, and I do so, as I indicated in my maiden speech, as someone who stands on the shoulders of giants. Dr Forbes was one of those giants, and I hope that in my contribution today I'll make that clear to this place. Dr Jim Forbes was born in Hobart on 16 December 1923. Having graduated from the Royal Military College Duntroon the day before turning 19 years of age, he went on to serve in the Second World War with the 2nd Australian Mountain Battery and was deployed to New Guinea, Bougainville, Japan and Germany. In recognition of his gallant service in the South-West Pacific, Dr Forbes was awarded the Military Cross in 1945. It should also be noted that the same award was bestowed upon his father and brother. After the war he continued his service within the Citizen Military Forces Adelaide Universities Regiment until 1956. He graduated with honours at the University of Adelaide, was awarded his PhD from Oxford and subsequently worked as a university lecturer. Following the death of the House of Representatives Speaker the Hon. Archie Cameron MP, Dr Forbes successfully contested the by-election for the federal seat of Barker, a seat which it is my great privilege to hold today. Dr Forbes was promoted to the Menzies government frontbench in December 1963, when he was appointed Minister for the Navy, Minister for the Army and Minister Assisting the Treasurer. It was in his defence related roles that he visited the Australian military forces deployed in Vietnam in 1965 and introduced a defence bill into parliament which enabled conscription for overseas military service. He later served as Minister for Health from 1966 to 1971 and Minister for Immigration from 1971 to 1972. Following the McMahon government's defeat at the 1972 election, Dr Forbes transitioned to become the opposition spokesperson on defence, and he served in that role until March 1975. He retired from the parliament at the federal election held in December of that year. Upon leaving parliament, Dr Forbes remained active within the Liberal Party and served as the South Australian vice-president, moving on to be the South Australian division's president from 1979 to 1982 and federal president of the Liberal Party from 1982 to 1985. The Liberal Party of Australia will celebrate the 75th anniversary of its foundation this weekend. In doing so, we'll celebrate the modern link between our party's forefathers and those of us who have the privilege of parliamentary roles on behalf of that party, being the Hon. John Howard. It's sad that Jim didn't live to see that anniversary—he died on 10 August—because Jim was the actual link. When he entered parliament, he served as the last minister in the Menzies government alive. He served prime ministers effectively across the ages. He served under Prime Ministers Menzies, Holt, McEwen, Gorton, McMahon and caretaker PM, Malcolm Fraser. His life, as you've heard, was segregated in four distinct parts: his military service from age 16-24, his academic service at Adelaide University until the age of 33, as a member of parliament until he retired aged 52, and then his much celebrated retirement. He was an incredibly humble man. His advice to me on being given the great privilege to represent the Liberal Party at the 2013 election—indeed before my election—was to ensure that I always retained that deep humility. Effectively, Jim's thesis was that hubris in politics was Kryptonite, and he lived his life that way. He had provided so much and yet he was so humble about his circumstances. This was an individual who worked through some of the most difficult periods of our Federation. It was acknowledged that when he left the parliament he had the view that for every year of service in this place, he needed two years to return to normality. Having spent six years in this place, I think I can, perhaps, appreciate what it is he was saying. He beat a field of 30 candidates at his pre-selection. Before that, he was president of the university Liberal Union, and he remained humble throughout his time in this place and, indeed, after it. During his time in parliament he was a strong voice for Barker and for our national interests. He was well ahead of his time, albeit unsuccessfully, when he campaigned for anti-smoking campaigns as health minister. He was integral in the design of the selective conscription scheme during the war in Vietnam and became notable, of course, when he was immigration minister for deporting Joe Cocker for possession of marijuana in 1972. While these decisions may not have been popular at the time, they were made with the conviction that underscored Forbes' time in this place. He never shied away from taking responsibility and acting on the basis of a whole-of-government response. The electorate of Barker back then was slightly different in size and shape than it is today, but its economic character remains. Agriculture is at the heart of industry in Barker. In Dr Forbes' maiden speech he noted that Barker produces many of the finer wines in South Australia and contains the entire state's forestry industry, as well as crayfish, sheep and beef. These remain vitally important industries in Barker today. While reading Dr Forbes' maiden speech, something else struck a chord with me, and I would like to read a section of it which highlights a similarity. When speaking about the developments in sheep grazing, Dr Forbes notes: It is a development which has been brought about by marrying the hard work and practical knowledge of the farmer to the researches of the scientists. This is the modern pioneering technique. The frontiers of settlement in Australia have been pushed back nearly as far as they will go … The new pioneers are those who, in their practical work on farms and their researches in institutions and universities, are pushing back, not the frontiers of settlement, but the frontiers of knowledge. This work is so vital to the future development of the country that they deserve every ounce of support and encouragement that we can give them. It was when I read this that I felt a real sense that Dr Forbes and I are doing the same job and working towards the same thing—albeit, at a very different time. Ultimately our role is to better the living standards of those living in the electorate of Barker. The growth of productivity in agriculture, forestry and fisheries is how we ultimately succeed in that goal. It's our responsibility to leave the parliament having improved the lives of our constituents, and by growing our agricultural sector, we will go a long way to achieving that goal. Dr Forbes was a dedicated representative of the people of Barker. He worked hard to represent his constituents. For a large part of his political career, he was a member of cabinet. In his words: One of the things about life in politics, with a large country electorate and with ministerial responsibilities, is that you lose touch with a normal life. I pay tribute today to Dr Forbes as a former member of this place, as a former member for Barker and as a man who made great sacrifices in doing so. His humility, I think, was probably best brought out at his 90th birthday. His family had gathered, his wife, Margaret, children Sarah, Emma, Alexander and David—sadly, Anne had died the year before. When he was asked to speak he simply proposed a toast, and in proposing that toast he simply said, 'To my wife, Margaret.' This is a man who was awarded the Military Cross; who was an academic at university; who served in this place both as the member for Barker and in cabinet with various portfolio responsibilities; who, through the Vietnam War, was health minister; who was working towards a universal health system; and who bore the difficult decision around conscription in and around the Vietnam War. And who, by the way, reflected before his death to a journalist—there are very few people in Australia, indeed he was the last individual, who could say this from the first person's perspective—and these were Jim's words: I can remember when the die was cast and the decision finally taken, Menzies sat back in his chair and just looked around the table— of course, that's the cabinet table— and said; 'There comes a time in the life of any government where it just has to make decisions which it believes are in the best interests of the country, even if they believe they are committing political suicide.' This was statesmanship at its highest order from the great founder of our political movement and recorded in the words of Jim Forbes, who sat around that table and was responsible for driving that decision—remembering, of course, that Menzies had had previous history with debates around conscription at the end of World War II. A little known fact about Jim is that he was also an innovator when it came to campaigning. Those of us in this place who conduct meet-and-greets on street corners and other things might do well to learn that, in fact, Jim Forbes who was the first individual ever to do so. Jim would come into a community in the electorate and present himself at the local post office just before closing time, because he knew everyone would come and post their mail. He knew that he could meet a lot more people doing it that way. Indeed, people in my electorate still remember that campaign technique, it being so effective that 50 or more years later people remind me that Jim did that. Jim was also an egalitarian. When he spoke about conscription and how difficult it was and that people mocked the idea in Australia of putting marbles in a ballot box. He said it was a lot better system than the US used, where people of wealth could avoid poor outcomes. Colleagues, I began by talking about giants, that we stand on the shoulders of giants. To be honest, when the Prime Minister spoke in glowing terms of Jim Forbes in the parliament on this very motion, I was embarrassed. It is very hard for someone like me to live up to one of our nation's great political giants, and I don't think it's too much to say that of Jim. He would suggest that this motion is unnecessary and that we don't need to be fussing about his life and career, but I don't share that view. He was also someone who understood that in government there needs to be a whole-of-government approach. I mentioned earlier the deportation of Joe Cocker. It was not a decision that he supported, but it was one that was taken by the Prime Minister of the day and one that Jim defended. He defended it even to his daughter who thought it outrageous. I understand that it wasn't till much later in life that his daughter was made aware that he didn't support the decision but that he had to defend it. The last thing I want to say in relation to this is as follows: it's my fervent wish that we remember Jim for all times as Dr Alexander James Forbes, and we should do that by renaming the seat of Barker to Forbes. Why do I say that? No individual has had more impact in relation to this seat—my seat, the great seat of Barker—than Dr Forbes. Others will suggest that perhaps it is inappropriate to rename a Federation seat. I remind those that in fact Barker is not a Federation seat. It was created in 1903 and that, in my view, paves the way for us to properly acknowledge and remember one of the great Australian members of this place who, sadly—and I think because of his deep humility—is underremembered for his service to this nation. Acknowledgements and thank you to Margaret and the family. Vale Dr Alexander James 'Jim' Forbes. Honourable members: Hear, hear! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask all present to do so. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I thank the Federation Chamber. 12:32 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker by leave—I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. ADJOURNMENT 102 ADJOURNMENT Capral Aluminium 102 12:33 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Earlier this month I had the opportunity to visit Capral Aluminium, an Australian nationwide manufacturer and stockholder of aluminium products with its Perth manufacturing base in none other than Canning Vale in the electorate of Burt. As a manufacturer that has been operating since 1936, you could say: they know aluminium. Capral Aluminium is Australia's largest manufacturer and distributor of aluminium products into the marine, defence, transport and building industries. They are dedicated to local industry and produce aluminium products of the highest standards. One of their major clients is Austal ships, an Australian shipbuilder and defence prime contractor, operating around the world and based in Henderson in the south of Perth. Capral is a specialist supplier of aluminium products for the ships Austal build that are commissioned not only for our defence operations but also for our neighbours. Capral has a longstanding relationship not only with Austal but with a number of other key defence contractors, including Civmec engineering and BAE Industries. Capral are passionate about supplying the market with quality product in Australia. It's in our sovereign interest, but it goes further than that. Without a thriving Australian manufacturing industry, job opportunities and the future of work for all Australians is compromised. We must do more to support our locally owned and operated businesses like Capral to get and maintain defence industry contracts as well as commercial work more generally. The primary concern is dealing with issues surrounding the dumping of aluminium from overseas suppliers here in Australia, which can undercut businesses like Capral and others. Until recently, Australia's aluminium industry has been highly profitable. As a major producer of the key aluminium ingredient bauxite, there is no reason why Australia shouldn't have its own profitable aluminium industry all the way down the manufacturing chain. The value of these supply chains is evident in the Australian aluminium industry, from mining through to refining and the manufacture of aluminium itself. This continued integration of aluminium producers in Australia, together with a fulsome value-adding capability, is just as important. We cannot allow the loss of these value-adding aluminium industries, depriving our economy of capturing any of the value in downstream processing of bauxite into aluminium. Capral are also a major aluminium supplier for industry—for example, they produce many of the window and door frames for the housing and construction industry in WA and around Australia. They tell me, though, that they are constantly fighting against cheaper imported products. Even businesses just down the road from where they operate have imported aluminium products from overseas—products that are cheaper not for reasons of labour cost or efficiency but because the seller is quite happy to make the loss in selling those products into Australia. There are millions of tonnes of excess aluminium globally, which means oversupply is dragging down the price and profitability here. Dumping occurs when an exporter sells goods into Australia at a price that is below the normal value of those goods, not only taking a loss themselves but, critically, undercutting Australian suppliers and producers. While positive steps have been made to eradicate this practice, there needs to be more work done to strengthen antidumping measures. Border Force has been running a long-term investigation into companies that have been created to deliberately deceive in these areas—companies that circumvent our antidumping laws by transshipping aluminium to Australia via countries that don't currently attract our antidumping attention such as Indonesia or Singapore. It's actions like this that undercut local industry like Capral. It needs to be stopped. We can't ignore these issues. Current requirements to have industry content in Defence procurement that is local are a positive thing. They're extremely important to expanding businesses across Australia, not just those like Capral that are producing the raw materials but those that are involved in putting those materials together to create essential capability for Australia that we can also export to the world. It's only through that industry that we can provide steadiness against potential swings and downturns that come naturally to all economies and which WA is presently experiencing in the housing and construction industry. It's why it is such a vitally important area. After all, an established defence industry sector along with other sectors such as our resources sector in Western Australia will provide certainty of employment and training for the next generation of our skilled Australian workers: our designers, engineers, tradies, labourers and everything in between. So, on that note, we must do more to support Aussie manufacturers like Capral not only to have the capacity to construct window frames for houses but also to construct unique materials to ready our Defence Force for anything well into the future. All they ask for is a level playing field so that we can deliver it for our country, for our workers. Wentworth Electorate: Westfield Local Heroes 103 12:38 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth Before speaking, I would like to acknowledge the words spoken by the member for Barker about the late Hon. Jim Forbes and the kind things he had to say about a very distinguished career. I rise to acknowledge the 2019 Westfield Local Heroes community recognition program and congratulate three recipients of this program residing in my electorate of Wentworth. The Westfield Local Heroes program discovers and celebrates individuals who promote social wellbeing and cohesion in their communities. The finalists are nominated and voted for by their community, and each are awarded a $10,000 grant for their affiliated organisation. This funding aims to help recipients grow their programs and better connect and enrich the local communities in which they operate. First, I would like to acknowledge Westfield Scentre Group's CEO, Peter Allen, for facilitating this tremendous community initiative. Across Australia and New Zealand, Westfield has awarded the title of local hero to 120 community leaders. This amounts to $1.2 million being distributed to the wider community to raise awareness of important social issues and recognise those in our community who give more than they take. At just 20 years old, Rikki Stern received the life-changing diagnosis of Hodgkin's lymphoma. During her treatment journey, Rikki craved contact with others in her position but could not find community support for women her age. This inspired her to start Cancer Chicks, an Australian social media group that provides support to cancer sufferers based on shared experience. Today Cancer Chicks is a community of more than 300 Australian women aged between 20 and 30 years old. Rikki says that many of these women have experienced major surgeries and invasive treatment and had body parts removed or pregnancies terminated. She also says that, having lost hair, breasts and ovaries, many struggle with their identity and body image. To her credit, Rikki has created a safe and nurturing platform for women to share the highs and lows of what is an incredibly tough and confronting journey. Now cancer free, Rikki is more determined than ever. Cancer Chicks has now teamed up with Pink Hope, an organisation that focuses on the prevention of breast and ovarian cancer. I would like to thank Rikki for her courage and leadership in leading this movement. George Freund is another whose compassion and humility reflects the giving nature of the Australian spirit. George is a Holocaust survivor. His mother hid him in Budapest during the war. George's father was a regular volunteer at COA Sydney, a drop-in centre which provides activities to facilitate healthy ageing and which happens to offer the only kosher Meals on Wheels service in Sydney. After his father passed away, George stepped into his father's volunteering duties and made an immediate impact within the organisation. Now in his 80s, George is still actively involved in managing the organisation, recruiting volunteers and assisting with meal deliveries. He says he has never forgotten that Australia took his family in as refugees and gave them a beautiful home. Financially, he says, he can't give much, but he is giving back tremendously in his own way. George attributes the award to all the hardworking volunteers at COA. He says community work is a reciprocal cycle of helping and being helped, giving and being given to. COA will use its grant to continue its Meals on Wheels program, which currently runs at a loss. George says COA does not allow anyone to go hungry, regardless of their ability to pay. I would like to thank George for his endless compassion and congratulate him on a very well deserved achievement. I also wish to acknowledge Jose Bello, an early childhood educator, who started Next Step in 2011. Next Step provides soccer skills for children with autism, Down syndrome and cerebral palsy, as well as other medical conditions. As a former professional footballer, Jose understands the power of sport in bringing people together. To date, 350 children aged from three to eight have benefited from the free program, which many parents laud as a form of therapy for their kids. The program teaches new physical and cognitive skills and incorporates a range of physiotherapy exercises and gross motor training. Jose says that Next Steps doesn't just benefit the children but builds a secure and inclusive network for both parent and child. The foundation will use its grant to recruit more coaches and invest in much-needed specialist equipment. I wish Rikki, George and Jose all the very best in their future endeavours. Their generosity and dedication have touched the lives of many and will continue to have an impact. Accountability Round Table Integrity Awards 104 12:43 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi This week the Accountability Round Table recognised Cathy McGowan AO, my predecessor in this place as the independent member for Indi, with the Alan Missen Award for integrity. The Speaker too was recognised, with the roundtable's John Button Award. Both awards acknowledge exceptional contributions to parliamentary integrity. Cathy was elected in 2013 as the result of a grassroots democratic campaign led by Voices for Indi. It brought together people from our communities to identify issues important to them and to support a candidate who could give voice to and seek resolution of those issues in parliament. This was doing politics differently, and at its heart were the values of integrity, honesty and respect. In her two terms in parliament Cathy achieved much for the people of Indi, but she also did much to advance the cause of integrity in politics in Australia. In November last year Cathy presented a bill to establish a National Integrity Commission, which would investigate corruption and wrongdoing in the public sector and among politicians and their staff. The bill had wide support among my Indi constituents, with Cathy receiving hundreds of emails and letters endorsing her action. It also had wide public support and across the legal profession, but not in the government. Yesterday I joined my colleagues the member for Sydney and the member for Wentworth at the Museum of Australian Democracy's launch of its Democracy 2025 report, the outcome of an academic study in which parliamentarians were surveyed about how they see our democracy and how it can be reformed. The report reveals that 60 per cent of politicians were satisfied with the performance of our democracy, but only 40 per cent of voters are satisfied. Worse, just 21 per cent of Australians trust politicians—an all-time low. What it shows is that building greater trust in politicians and the parliament and its institutions is critical for a healthy democracy. There's no mystery about what people want from their elected representatives: honesty, empathy and delivery. They want parliamentarians who do what they say, who listen to them and who bring great and real change to their lives. While there are many democratic reforms that voters support but which politicians do not, there are areas of agreement. Reform is possible. We can start where we do agree, on our common ground. Voters believe that political candidates should provide them with details of their campaign pledges to ensure they respond to constituents' needs. Most politicians agree. Australians believe the amount of money that parties and candidates can spend on campaigning and how much they can accept from donors should be limited. Most politicians actually agree. In fact the Democracy 2025 report shows the reforms to improve our democracy favoured by the greatest number of parliamentarians centre on campaign donations and election pledges. Change starts where we agree. There are two bills before the parliament that would begin to restore the public trust that is so sorely missing. First, the member for Mayo has presented the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Real Time Disclosure of Political Donations) Bill 2019. This bill would require political parties and politicians to disclose donations they receive within five days, not 365 as is currently the case. Second, the member for Melbourne has reintroduced the National Integrity Commission bill that Cathy McGowan first developed. The government insists it will introduce its own bill by the end of the year. But November is 14 days away and no draft legislation has yet been put to us. When the government does release this draft, all Australians will expect it to be as strong as the McGowan model, with public hearings, public findings and properly funded, dedicated anticorruption investigative resourcing. Australian voters and my constituents in Indi will not accept a limp lettuce serve, nor will I. I began by congratulating Cathy McGowan for setting the standard for integrity in politics over the last two parliaments. She has set the benchmark that all of us elected to this place should meet, and she has left a legacy that I intend to carry on. The people of Indi elected me because for six years they had confidence in a representative who did what she said she would do, who listened to them and delivered to their expectations: honesty, empathy and action. Cathy McGowan deserved the Alan Missen Integrity Award. I invite all my colleagues to tread the path that she has made. Telecommunications 105 12:48 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Communications technology has been changing and will continue to keep changing at an almost frightening pace. I hesitate to identify myself as one who in 1979, as a newly married, sat on the end of a party line that had four kilometres of private line leading into the house. It was in very poor repair, but we knew that the underground cable was coming. In fact we were shut off from the world for three months, but we lived with that. Then of course the new underground copper cable came through 40 years ago. Then in the 1990s we got computers. We hooked on to the dial-up internet, and that was a pretty good thing. It doesn't seem that long ago, really, when internet speeds were measured in kilobits per second, not megabits per second. Then we had ADSL and ADSL2 wash across Australia. Then came the satellite system, which actually worked pretty well when it first went up, but became overloaded when a former government let out too many access points to it. We had the local internet service providers with fixed wireless networks which they set up around Australia. Now, of course, we have the NBN. In Grey, I'm pleased to report that we are better than 99 per cent enabled, so virtually everybody in Grey can hook on to the NBN now. The Sky Muster satellites are performing well. And we've had a great expansion in mobile phone technology, courtesy of the Mobile Black Spot Program, and I thank the federal government for being the only side of politics that has ever put any money into mobile phone reach in regional areas. I always hark back to the fact that when the Labor government came to power in 2007 they immediately knocked off the $2 billion Communications Fund which was to roll out new technologies into regional Australia. We've gone from the analog mobile phone system to 2G, 3G, and 4G. Yet to come is 5G, and what will be after that, we don't know. The reason for bringing all this to the chamber's attention is that this has completely changed the old lines of communications in our community. Newspapers have been seriously eroded. Their advertising streams have disappeared. The same has happened to our television networks, in particular the regional television networks. I must say, radio seems to be a bit of a survivor; it's perhaps doing better than any of those other things. Those involved in the delivery of regional television—WIN, Prime and Southern Cross across Australia—are doing some lobbying about some changes to the way that they deliver programs. What's at threat here, of course, is local news delivery. That's how they reach their local content rules. The way they meet their compliance is actually to have a local newsroom. It is a very important part of country living. It's an important part of politics, not just so people can get messages out there but so people can stay in touch with their communities. As these technologies continue to evolve and change, I think we in this place will have to fight to make sure that we do have regional news services continue in Australia. It's very important. It's worth noting, of course, that the one provider we do all fund—the ABC—provides very little in this space. That's a great disappointment to me. While they've got money to put into digital platforms and take shows like Q&A to India, they appear not to have the money to put into local television. But that said, we do have a good commercial sector out there. They are seeking, at the moment, to be able to bring the three channels together, Seven, Nine and Ten, and broadcast them off a single platform. I must say, where I come from, because of the low population base, this is called a monopoly broadcaster. That's exactly what we already have. I see no great danger in that, but there are other issues that are associated with that, such as competitiveness in advertising. But, for my electorate, served by Southern Cross—and I thank them very much for maintaining their newsroom there; it's a very important service—I don't see any great detriment to them having the licence to broadcast three channels. Something that I know the government will have to consider—and I think the whole parliament will have to consider over the near term—is how we let the modern world adapt to the pressures of the modern world. They're important issues. There are no simple answers, but it's in this space we will have to work in the near future. Human Rights 106 12:53 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills As members of parliament in such a great democracy, I believe it is our collective duty to stand up for human rights and speak up when we see those rights diminished or abused. It's something I've tried to do since I was elected in 2016, whether it's speaking up about human rights issues suffered by the Uygur people in China religious persecution of the Baha'i people in northern Yemen or in Iran, the Rohingya people from Myanmar who have been forced into IDP camps or across the border into Bangladesh, or the Kurdish community in northern Syria and in Turkey, or even here at home, with respect to upholding the rights of Australians. I will always try and do this as part of this democracy and as part of this place. People in my electorate also raise concerns with me about a range of human rights issues around the world. They care, and I thank them for their passion and their commitment to these issues and taking the time to speak with me about them. I recently met in Melbourne with the general secretary of the Victorian Hong Kong students association and other Hong Kong students who were in Melbourne, to speak to them about the demonstrations in Hong Kong and the impact on them and their families. These students in Australia from Hong Kong have also been involved in peaceful protests on campuses in Australia, supporting basic human rights and democratic freedoms for their brothers, sisters and family in Hong Kong. For that, they have been threatened over the phone, on social media and even physically. I committed to raise these issues here in the parliament but also to the relevant authorities on their behalf. I said to those Hong Kong students that, as elected political leaders in this democracy, we must continue to support the right to peaceful protests and democratic freedoms, for, if we as democratic leaders do not support democracy, who will? Just last week, a group from my electorate shared with me their concerns with respect to their family members and loved ones living in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Following the withdrawal of article 370 of the Indian constitution, the living conditions and human rights of those living in Kashmir have been deteriorating. There's not much media about this, but I do support the efforts being made by Australian officials to push for the release of Kashmiri political leaders who are under house arrest, as well as lifting the media and communications blackouts that have been imposed in Kashmir. No group of people should be persecuted based on their faith, their culture, their ethnicity or their nationality. I understand that Australian officials have also made representations to Pakistan to continue to sever any links that there may be with groups that have been involved in any violent attacks. It's important that the parties in the region know that the world is watching. It's important that they know that those affected by their actions have family members and loved ones across the world, in nations who will speak up for their interests. And it's important for this place, this House, this country and democracies worldwide to speak and act together to protect the human rights of people in that region of Kashmir. We are all watching, with grave concern, the situation faced by the population of northern Syria, particularly the Kurdish population in that part of Syria. The events that are occurring there deeply affect the Kurdish Australian community. The decision by President Trump to abandon an ally, an ally that gave 11,000 lives in the fight against ISIS on the ground—a decision which opens up more violent conflict in Syria, creates the conditions for another humanitarian disaster, with tens of thousands of civilians now being displaced, and actually opens up the very real risk of ISIS re-emerging and resurging—has left many of us in shock and disbelief. Labor's shadow foreign minister, Penny Wong, often speaks about the need to put Australian values, like respect for human rights, at the centre of our foreign policies—a core element of how we do our foreign affairs. Probably most would agree that the world we live in today shows that this is more necessary than ever. It doesn't matter where in the world human rights abuses are occurring, it is our responsibility and possibly our duty, as leaders of a democracy, to speak out against those human rights abuses. As an elected leader in our democracy, with my colleagues here, it is, I think, of critical importance for us to champion human rights whenever we can and to stand with people fighting for their freedom and for democracy around the world. Paradise Dam 106 12:58 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to inform the House of a tale of Shakespearean proportions, or certainly that's how it's starting to look. It's not Romeo and Juliet or The Taming of the Shrew; it's a tale of woe—or more a tale of spin. Once again I speak about the hapless Palaszczuk Labor government in Queensland and the Paradise Dam debacle. Paradise Dam is a dam near my electorate of Hinkler, in the electorate of Flynn but supplying the irrigators of Childers, Bundaberg and elsewhere and supplying town water to Childers, Woodgate, Bundaberg and elsewhere. This tale started couple of weeks ago, and the first tale of spin was this: 'It's great news for farmers! It's free water!' The state Labor government announced free water for irrigators, provided you could use it in the 10 weeks they intended to release it from the Paradise Dam, otherwise it would run out to sea. A couple of days later an unspecified safety issue was the problem, and they now planned to reduce the height of the dam by five metres, reducing its capacity by 85,000 megalitres. One of the more recent announcements, from this week, was that it was the fault of the Campbell Newman government. Today the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, the Hon. Dr Anthony Lynham, said in a media release: 'It's fantastic news. Now the Gregory Weir is at full supply level.' We weren't aware that this was a problem. In fact, he stated, 'It was approaching a critical low.' He continued: … Sunwater and the Government are making every effort to ensure that the water that has to be released for safety is being used as productively as possible. …   …   … … to allow works to improve the dam's stability during extreme rain events. The Queensland Labor government has also announced that it will have an inquiry into the effect on emergency procedures for the Bundaberg region. None of these announcements—not one of them—actually states what the problem is. We have not been informed as to why the state government is taking this action, but we know what the results are. The results are that 110,000 megalitres of water is flowing down the river, 85,000 megalitres of capacity is being removed from the state's newest dam, and rumours are running wild around the community, because it just doesn't know what could happen. Once again we have a state Labor government that simply won't tell the truth. All we are asking for is transparency. What is the issue with the dam? What do you plan to do about it? When will it be repaired? How much will it cost? Will you reinstate it to its full holding capacity of 300,000 megalitres? I say again to Premier Palaszczuk: enough is enough. Stop the blame game. Stop the ducking. Stop the telling of the spin, the announcements every other day that it is someone else's fault or that it's fantastic news. Our community simply know that this is bad for them, bad for the regional economy and bad for agriculture, and that is bad for our future. What is the truth? There are unconfirmed and unsubstantiated rumours about a problem with the dam wall. There are unsubstantiated and unconfirmed discussions about a plan to lower it by 17 metres. This dam cost approximately $300 million to construct. They've spent over $60 million on repairs post flood events. They expect to spend up to $100 million to reduce the capacity of the dam. When you add that into what's happening at the Rookwood Weir and the dam to the west, assuming they go ahead, the taxpayer will have spent almost half a billion dollars for Queensland irrigators and Queensland towns to have less water than they have today—$500 million to have less storage capacity than we started with. Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, I know you are passionate about regional areas. I know you understand the importance of agriculture and jobs. I think you, like us, just want answers. This is not that difficult. All the Premier has to do is walk up to a microphone and tell us what the issue is. Our community deserves answers. It is taxpayers' funds that are being expended. Stop putting Sunwater out for the bus to run over it at every meeting and not allowing it to answer the questions. Get in the proper engineers and assessments and fix the dam wall, otherwise Paradise will be lost. I say to the Premier: what is the dam plan? Tell us what it is. Tell the community. They deserve to know. They have a right to know. It is our money and our economy and our future at stake. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:03   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 108 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Australian Aid Budget (Question No. 141) 108 141 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 9 September 2019 : In respect of the statement on page 11 of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade publication Australian Aid Budget Summary 2019-20 that the Government is spending $300 million over four years to 2020 to deliver climate and disaster resilient low carbon growth in the Pacific region: (a) how much of this $300 million was spent in: (i) 2015-16, (ii) 2016-17, (iii) 2017-18, and (iv) 2018-19; and (b) how much has been spent in 2019-20 to date. Mr Morrison E3L The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: a) Australia has committed to spending at least $300 million over four years (2016-17 to 2019-20) on climate change and disaster resilience in the Pacific. i. n/a ii. $101.9 million iii. $95.2 million iv. Not yet available as data is undergoing validation. b) Data for 2019-20 is not yet available. Australian Aid Budget (Question No. 142) 108 142 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 09 September 2019 : In respect of the statement on page 11 of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade publication Australian Aid Budget Summary 2019-20 that the Government is spending $300 million over four years to 2020 to deliver climate and disaster resilient low carbon growth in the Pacific region, for each year from 2015-16 to 2018-19 and for 2019-20 to date: (a) can details be provided of each individual project or initiative funded under this measure; (b) what sum of money was spent on each project; (c) in which country or countries is each project located; (d) what was the period of time over which each project was in operation; and (e) what were the outcomes achieved from each project or initiative. Mr Morrison E3L The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1. Attachment A illustrates how climate and disaster resilience is being integrated across the Australian aid program in the Pacific. In accordance with DAC requirements: - where climate change and disaster resilience is a primary objective of an investment, 100 per cent of the investment is accounted; - where climate change and disaster resilience is a secondary objective of an investment, a proportion of the investment is accounted. Attachment A – Climate and disaster resilience in Pacific regional and bilateral programs is available from the table office. Climate Change (Question No. 143) 108 143 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 9 September 2019 : In respect of the 13 August 2019 joint media release 'Stepping up Climate Resilience in the Pacific' which said the Government would provide $500 million from existing aid funds for Pacific renewable energy, climate change and disaster resilience over five years from 2020: (a) in which financial years will this $500 million be provided; (b) how much has been allocated for each financial year; (c) does this $500 million include any funds from the $300 million budgeted for Pacific climate and disaster resilient growth over the four years to 2020 as outlined on page 11 of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade publication Australian Aid Budget Summary 2019-20; if so, how much of the $300 million has been moved from the four years to 2020 to the five years from 2020; and (d) given that the $500 million will come from existing aid funds, (i) how much will planned aid expenditure for countries in regions other than the Pacific be reduced to accommodate the $500 million commitment, (ii) which countries will see reductions, (iii) how much will planned aid expenditure through global, multilateral or regional channels be reduced to accommodate the $500 million commitment, (iv) which global, multilateral or regional channels will see reductions, (v) how much will planned aid expenditure for Pacific countries on investment priorities other than renewable energy, climate change and disaster resilience be reduced to accommodate the $500 million commitment, and (vi) which other investment priorities will see reductions. Mr Morrison E3L The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: a) From 2020-21 to 2024-25. b) Allocation across financial years is not fixed. Australia will work with Pacific countries to target spending on their priorities. c) No. d)    i. to iv. Decisions on funding allocations are made annually.    v. Australia's aid to Pacific countries will reflect the priorities of those countries.    vi. Decisions on funding allocations are made annually. Vietnam Veterans Education Centre (Question No. 149) 109 149 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel, in writing, on 9 September 2019: (1) Has the Government of the United States of America (US) returned to the Australian Government the US$3.3 million, previously held on trust for the purposes of constructing an education centre in Washington DC on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Foundation; if not, why not. (2) Has the Australian Government received interest payments since the funds were transferred to the US Government in 2013; if so, what is the total amount received; if not, why not. Mr Chester IPZ The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The US$3.3million contribution made by the Australian Government for the construction of the Vietnam Veterans Education Centre (VVEC) on the National Mall in Washington DC was paid to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (VVMF). The VVMF is the non-profit organisation that was responsible for managing and raising funds for the project. No payments were made to the US Government. The VVMF has made contact with the Australian Government to establish how the funding may be returned and to outline its revised plans to educate people about the Vietnam War through online and technology-based methods. A detailed business case is yet to be received from the VVMF. (2) The Australian Government contribution for the VVEC was made to ensure that Australia's participation in the Vietnam War was appropriately represented and to provide a source of education about our involvement to American and international visitors to the centre. There was never any expectation that a return on investment in monetary value would be realised. Any decision relating to the funding (including the potential for full or partial return of Australia's contribution) will be made once the Australian Government has been able to consider how it may best support the VVMF's revised plans. Contract Notice CN3625404 (Question No. 162) 109 162 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 10 September 2019 : With respect to Contract Notice CN3625404 published on Austender on 3 September 2019: (1) What are the details of the market research to be provided by Hall and Partners Pty Ltd. (2) What subject matters will the market research cover. (3) What methodologies will be used in the market research. (4) Why has the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade commissioned this market research. (5) If the market research relates to a government advertising campaign: (a) what are the details of that campaign; and (b) what phase of the campaign will the market research support. Mr Morrison E3L The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Contract Notice CN3625404 is for Education and Training Services with Lisa Denny Consulting. (2) N/A (3) N/A (4) N/A (5) N/A Contract Notice CN3625955 (Question No. 163) 109 163 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 11 September 2019 : With respect to Contract Notice CN3625955 published on Austender on 5 September 2019:(1) What are the details of the market research to be provided by Colmar Brunton.(2) What subject matters will the market research cover.(3) What methodologies will be used in the market research.(4) Why has the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade commissioned this market research.(5) If the market research relates to a government advertising campaign: (a) what are the details of that campaign; and (b) what phase of the campaign will the market research support. Mr Morrison E3L on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs - The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. The Colmar Brunton market research is to gauge community attitudes towards international trade and foreign direct investment; and to test the effectiveness of government messaging when engaging with the general public on these topics. 2. Community attitudes toward international trade and foreign direct investment. 3. Online survey for 1800 participants plus a further 200 telephone interviews. 4. To inform the department's approach to public communications about international trade and foreign direct investment. 5. The market research does not relate to a government advertising campaign. a. Nil response. b. Nil response.