2019-10-22 46 1 1 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 22 October 2019

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

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Australia's Family Law System Joint Select Committee 1 Membership 1 12:01 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland by leave—I move: That Mr Perrett and Dr Aly be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and Their Families First) Bill 2019 1

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

Second Reading 1 12:02 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Brett tried to stay in the service but ended up requesting discharge. Like many men proud of their masculinity, he never really discussed the mental anguish he was suffering and continues to suffer. In the years since, Brett has attempted suicide more than once. He and his partner, an incredibly supportive and articulate person, fight bureaucracy every day. At the core of the DVA's intransigence is its ongoing doubt that Brett was suffering PTSD at the time of his discharge. The hoops it has made Brett jump through again and again—the medical tests, the appointments, the paperwork—are beyond belief. Brett's dealings with the DVA have worsened his mental health, not improved it. That in itself should be a clarion call to the DVA to change its ways. If the way it conducts its affairs hurts the veterans it was established to assist, it is not doing its job. This is a man who was injured in the service of his nation, who has attempted to take his own life, who is virtually a recluse before the age of 50, and the department wants to argue about whether his PTSD kicked in before or after discharge. It's not good enough. Thankfully, at the last meeting between my office and Brett, we introduced Brett to Mates4Mates, a fantastic mental health support program run in Tasmania for exservice personnel, and he has found a real connection. We can only hope that these small not-for-profit organisations get government support and stay active, because God help us if we see the closure of another community group that is getting results on the ground. Another of my veterans is Eric, who lives in Bridgewater. He served in the Navy during the Vietnam War. Eric had issues accessing dental care with his gold card entitlement. It was eventually resolved after my office intervened, but Eric's comments about his experiences with the DVA and with politicians have stuck with me. Eric openly expressed his frustrations with all politicians. We celebrate our country's service men and women in the way we shake their hands, give them hugs and speak about them during speeches on ANZAC and Remembrance Day. We wear the lapels. We use them as examples of everything good about Australians—resilience, camaraderie, sacrifice. Yet, after the photos, they return to their communities, neglected, forgotten about and forced to contend alone with a department that fails to treat them with dignity, respect and the courtesy that their service has earnt them. Eric only wanted two things from me when he contacted my office: help getting new teeth and a commitment that he and other veterans and those currently serving would be better looked after. He wanted to make sure that we would not forget about the contribution that veterans make, about what they have done and what they stand for. He wanted to make sure that I would be an advocate for better treatment, for better access to health care and for better services and benefits, which veterans are so deservedly entitled to. None of this is new information. We've known for years that returned service personnel suffer poor mental health, substance abuse, homelessness, family breakdown and suicide at higher rates than the general Australian population. For a long time, we have not been able to put a number to these stats. The specialised research doesn't exist readily. There's little literature and little coordinated information. What we know, we've had to string together from other data. An exception is the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, which recently published a report called Homelessness amongst Australian veterans: summary of project findings. It found that there are at least 5,800 veterans experiencing homelessness in Australia. That makes the homelessness rate for veterans around 5.3 per cent, when for the general population it's around 1.9 per cent. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare provided further analysis in Use of homelessness services by contemporary ex-serving Australian Defence Force members 2011-17. This report found that more than 1,200 ADF veterans were either homeless or facing homelessness following discharge. The report found that, when veterans started to access services, 46 per cent were already homeless and the rest were at risk. It also noted that veterans were twice as likely to describe themselves as sleeping rough and having no shelter before accessing assistance in comparison to non-veterans; they leave to it the last minute; and they try and do it on their own, until they just can't. Both of these reports explain some of the issues underlying the rate of homelessness among veterans: poor mental health, unemployment, financial stress and domestic and family violence. The 2010 ADF Mental Health Prevalence and Wellbeing Study interviewed half of all serving ADF members, and their experiences and results are blunt: 17.9 per cent sought help for stress, emotional, mental health or family problems; 27.6 per cent were concerned that reporting a mental disorder might result in them being treated differently during the length of their service; 26.9 per cent feared their military career might be harmed; and 36. 9 per cent said that the highest barrier to seeking help was concern that it would reduce their deployability. I recognise this report was issued almost 10 years ago, but it is indicative of the kind of toxic culture we have allowed to become embedded. Serving members feel actively deterred from seeking mental health help because it may have negative implications for their job. We need to turn that around. It's no wonder ADF members are leaving the military in bad shape. It's no wonder that they are reluctant to seek assistance when they return to civilian life, and it's absolutely no wonder that they have such poor health outcomes. Those who serve in our Defence Force require specialised and tailored health and social service assistance. It is critical that any covenant, the subject of this bill, provides the incentive that is needed to make that happen. Our veterans and their families, our current serving members and any Australian who enters the ADF in the future needs to know that their government and their community will support them. It is incumbent on all of us in this place to ensure that any person who has put their hand up to join the Army, Navy or Air Force will be looked after properly when they return to civilian life. They should be confident they will have access to the services they need to transition properly. They should be assured that their government, the one that they work for, is running a department that is sensitive to their needs and to the realities of their service, and that it isn't bogged down in bureaucratic nonsense. Our veterans and those who are serving need to know that they have earnt the permanent respect and thanks of a grateful nation, and this should be reflected in the way we treat them. I know the minister is committed to this. We stand with the minister on this bill and this covenant and all that they seek to achieve. I repeat my comments from yesterday: we do wish current members were also covered by the covenant. But, broadly speaking, this bill is one that Labor does support. We support its aims and its ambitions, and we stand with the minister in seeking a better deal for our veterans and making sure that they are better looked after. I hope that this covenant and the results of this bill lead to a deep culture change within the DVA, especially to ensure that our veterans, when they return, are treated with the respect, the dignity and the courtesy they so richly deserve. 12:10 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Earlier this year, an Adelaide Hills man was deployed to the Middle East on operations. Last week, his community wanted to show their gratitude for his service, and so, with the assistance of the Macclesfield RSL, students from the local primary school wrote letters of support and encouragement and gathered together treats to remind this soldier of home. It was a privilege to add my own words to the care package, and I hope that the soldier will know that his community is grateful for the sacrifices that he has made being away from family and home. We look forward to welcoming him home again soon. While small communities find their own way of showing respect for our veterans, the Australian Veterans’ Recognition (Putting Veterans and Their Families First) Bill 2019 creates a formal framework to provide government, businesses and the public with the ability to recognise and respect the sacrifices made by veterans and their families. It does so through three measures: by enshrining the Australian Defence Force covenant in legislation, by confirming that veterans laws should be interpreted for the benefit of the veteran, and, finally, by providing for the issue of pins, cards and other artefacts. While I support the bill and the intention that underpins it, I query the tangible benefits of pins and cards. In January this year, I hosted a roundtable forum. I was very grateful that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who is here in the chamber, came over to South Australia. A collection of RSL stakeholder representatives from my electorate attended the roundtable. It was an opportunity to give voice to the issues that have a real impact on the day-to-day lives of veterans and their families. Over 50 veterans attended the morning tea and roundtable and nobody mentioned a lapel pin. When veterans called for improvements, it was around the best advocacy grant funding framework to ensure a fairer distribution among ex-service organisations in all states and territories. I was very grateful to raise this issue again with the minister just yesterday afternoon. I hope that we can work towards a solution that benefits both regional and rural RSLs, as well as their metropolitan counterparts. What veterans continue to raise with me is the continuing injustice of the DFRDB commutation provisions. I note that the ombudsman is currently conducting a review into this matter, and I eagerly await the findings in a report to be delivered later this year. What veterans raised with me was the need for a grant funding project to address accessibility issues plaguing our ageing RSLs and memorial halls across the electorate, and, of course, they raised with me the availability of affordable and veteran-specific mental health services, such as the Jamie Larcombe Centre in Adelaide. After this bill was introduced, I took the opportunity to discuss the concept of lapel pins with veterans in my electorate. Some welcomed the sentiment behind the initiative, describing it as well intentioned but ultimately perhaps misguided in an attempt to recognise veterans and their families. Others were more forceful in their opposition, labelling the pin and veterans cards as a tokenistic gesture. In the words of one of our veterans, Mr Dennis Oldenhove, President of the Macclesfield RSL: 'We know who we are, we know what we've done and a pin won't change that.' One mother of a veteran who has spent the last few months in and out of the Jamie Larcombe Centre welcomed the sentiment behind the initiative but would rather the funds were spent on training DVA staff so that they were better equipped to deal with the complex and unique needs of veterans. Regarding the financial impact of the bill—$11.1 million over the forward estimates—it is unclear what proportion is to be allocated to the design, manufacturer and delivery of the lapel pin, but I expect that these details will be revealed in due course. Given the purpose of the pins is to identify who has served for our nation, I'm pleased to hear that the department confirms that the pins will be designed in Australia and made with Australian materials. At this early stage, it's unclear as to what benefit will be conferred on veterans who receive a veterans card. The department states the card will enable businesses, service providers and community groups to identify veterans so they can offer their acknowledgement and respect. But it is important to understand that this card itself does not require a business to provide a discount or other concession. It's entirely a matter for the business to choose what discounts, if any, they provide to a veteran or their family, or, indeed, if they choose to recognise the veterans card at all. On the face of it, the proposed veterans card appears to be an exercise in rebadging and redesigning the DVA's current health treatment and concession cards known as the gold, white and orange cards. It's difficult to see what additional benefit this will provide to veterans when there are already longstanding Defence family benefit schemes in operation. For example, in South Australia, Defence Families of Australia has been operating for six years and has already secured over 10,000 partnership agreements with some of the largest businesses in Australia, who are now offering discounts and benefits to veterans. While I'm sceptical as to whether the lapel pins and veterans cards will be of meaningful benefit to veterans and their families, it should not detract from the other positive measures contained in this bill. The bill enshrines in legislation the Australian Defence Force covenant. The covenant was announced by the minister late last year and it encourages Australians to recognise and acknowledge the unique nature of military service and to support veterans and their families. The covenant includes an oath: for what they have done, this we will do. People will be encouraged to take the oath at community commemorative events, such as Remembrance Day, but this will not replace the Ode and nor should it. The bill is also particularly important as it enshrining in legislation a commitment by the government that decision-makers will interpret veterans' affairs legislation in a way that benefits veterans and their families. This section also confirms that decision-makers will decide claims in a manner that's fair, just and consistent and do that within a time that is proportionate to the complexity of the matter. Arguably, these measures that veterans and the broader Australian public would expect are already occurring as a matter of course and should not need to be set out in legislation. I accept that I cannot speak for all veterans in my electorate nor, indeed, for all veterans across the country, but I return to the question of action versus words: does the bill actually improve the lives of veterans and their families? For example, this bill does not help those veterans pleading for transparency around the DFRDB computations and nor does it provide a fairer distribution for advocacy grants around our regional RSLs, who must travel significant distances to provide support to veterans living outside of metropolitan Adelaide. The bill also neither gives nor takes any rights from veterans and their families, and it confers no physical or financial benefit. That's not a criticism of the bill nor is it intended to minimise the importance of the covenant. I accept that respect and gratitude are not conditional upon the provision of financial support and that genuine and meaningful acknowledgement of the sacrifices made by those who have served our nation and those families who have supported them can be an important step in helping veterans adjust to civilian life. I'm also mindful that this bill should not be viewed in isolation from other valuable reforms and initiatives that are currently being undertaken by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I support the bill and want to convey my deepest gratitude to both those past and present serving Defence men and women. Your sacrifices and those of your family will not be forgotten. Our country's forever indebted to you. Thank you. For what you have done, this we will do. 12:18 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and Their Families First) Bill creates a new act which will provide a framework for government, business and the community to recognise and acknowledge the unique nature of military service and to support veterans and their families. In particular, the bill establishes an Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant, which enshrines in legislation the social contract established at the end of World War I to honour and look after our veterans. It could be said that the bill is largely symbolic, but personally I think it goes a lot further than that because it makes a very clear statement about the relationship between government and the veterans of this country and makes very clear the obligations that we have to support Defence personnel once they leave service. This particular covenant was referred to when the minister made his third annual statement on veterans only last week. I will refer to that statement for a moment because in that statement the minister has outlined a number of veterans support programs that the government has committed to, and again I support all of those programs. Indeed, I think it's important that each year the minister makes such a statement, which sets out what is happening within the veterans community across Australia. As the statement quite rightly points out, about 280,000 veterans and their families are currently supported by the government across the country. One of the very interesting comments to come out of that statement was that each year around 5½ thousand personnel leave our military service. What's just as interesting is that the average length of time that defence personnel remain in service is now around eight years. That is not that long, but, more importantly, what that says to me is that our defence personnel are leaving the defence services at a relatively young age, which means that they still have their whole lives ahead of them and therefore, if they have been affected by this service in some way, they will need support for a long time. It seems to me that the obligations that we have to support them perhaps will only grow over the years to come, because they are leaving at a much younger age. Military service is indeed unique. I join with others in saying thank you to those who have served and those who continue to serve, and to their families for the disruption to and the demands on them and the sacrifices they also make. There are several veterans organisations in my region and in the electorate that I represent, the electorate of Makin, and I have frequent interactions with all of them. I see firsthand the impact of military service on personnel and on their families. On 18 August, I attended—as I do almost every year, unless I'm here in Canberra—the annual Vietnam Veterans Day service held at Henderson Square in Montague Farm in my electorate. Some 60,000 Australians served in the Vietnam War. My understanding is that 528 Australian lives were lost as a result of that war, and indeed some three million people in total lost their lives as a result of that war. The keynote address on the day was delivered by His Excellency the Governor of South Australia, Hieu Van Le, who brought to the commemoration a very personal perspective on the war, from his war experience. He was in Vietnam at the time, as a young man, and saw firsthand the atrocities of that war, and it was indeed an eye-opener to hear his firsthand account of life throughout that period. It was after the war that he came to Australia as a boat refugee. The event was organised by the City of Salisbury and by the northern branch of the South Australian Vietnam veterans, who, again, I also have a very close relationship with and have had for many years. What was particularly wonderful to see on the day was a contingent of former South Vietnamese soldiers, who had since migrated to Australia but who had served as Australian allies in the war, and were there standing proudly in respect of the service that they had provided. This service, like most of these services, was well attended, with the Indigenous community, schoolchildren, the wider community, other veterans groups and their families all there for the day. I think that that is important because, for most veterans—particularly the Vietnam veterans, who often feel that their service was not properly acknowledged—it is always heartening to see the community come out in large numbers to acknowledge that service. I think that that is one of the things that makes a difference to the rehabilitation of those veterans who find it difficult, after they end their military service, to re-establish themselves within the community—just to know that the community appreciates what they did. That appreciation cannot be better displayed than by people coming out to commemorative services. Whilst I'm on my feet saying that, can I say that, in recent years, I have been incredibly heartened by the number of people coming out to services—particularly on Anzac Day, where the numbers have swelled in recent years. In my own electorate, at the two major events, both at the Salisbury RSL and the Tea Tree Gully RSL, people are now coming out by the thousands to those services. It's wonderful to see not just veterans but also younger people coming out in support. On 8 September I joined the Para District sub branch of the National Servicemen's Association in celebrating, at the Salisbury RSL club rooms, the 20th anniversary of the sub branch being established. Indeed, 20 years ago, I was there when the sub branch was established, and participated in the establishment of it. Some 290,000 Australians were called up in two intakes between 1951 and 1972. Whilst it is true that they are now generally of an older age group and are no longer in service, and that their numbers are diminishing, they should never be overlooked, nor should their service be seen in any way as lesser than that of any other person who has served this country. I particularly acknowledge the founding president of the Para District sub branch of the National Servicemen's Association, John Fisk, who I have got to know well over the years. I see John regularly. He's still an active member of the community. It was good to see him there at the lunch, along with current president Trevor Carter and state president Barry Presgrave. In just over a week's time, on Saturday 2 November, I will also attend the Kokoda Track memorial service that is held at the Kokoda Memorial in St Agnes, also in my electorate. Each year, unless I'm here in Canberra, I attend that service. That is a very special service in that those Australians who served in New Guinea and, in particular, as part of the Kokoda Track conflict are quite often overlooked. The reality is that they too did this country very proud. Some 625 Australians died and a further 1,055 were injured in New Guinea between July 1942 and 2 November 1942. But 2 November marks the retaking of the track by Australian forces, and, because of that, it's a moment to commemorate. My understanding is that, unfortunately, there were some three times as many casualties from sickness, from being in the jungle and from the weather conditions, than there were from the conflict itself. Nevertheless, it was a major conflict. One of the wonderful things about that service is that, almost every year that I have been to it, there has been someone who has been able to give a personal account of what it was like to serve in the Kokoda Track conflict back in 1942. When you hear the stories of what it was like, you understand just how different each battle is, how different each situation is and how different the long-term impacts of that service are on the lives of those people who have had to serve. On 11 November I will attend Remembrance Day services, as I am sure most members of this place will. That's an annual commitment that I make, as I'm sure so many other people do. I mention each of those commemorative services because, as I was saying a moment ago, each service is unique and each event is unique. Therefore, the impact on serving personnel will also be very different. I am sure it is very different for those military personnel who have served in the Middle East in recent years to what it was for those who served in Vietnam, World War II or even World War I. For that reason, the support services provided by the Department of Veterans' Affairs should take into account the uniqueness of each era and of each conflict. Sadly, I don't think that that has been the case to date. I have often met with veterans who have personal stories and personal issues that they feel aggrieved about because of the response they receive from the Department of Veterans' Affairs when they approach the department for assistance or some other kind of support. It seems to me that there hasn't been sufficient flexibility in the department to be able to give them the support that they rightly deserve and, I believe, are entitled to, but which, because of the way the guidelines are written, they miss out on. I hope that as a result of this covenant, which I think implies a very different response from what has been provided in the past, there will be the opportunity to demonstrate that flexibility and provide that support where the situation justifies the department doing so. There is one other matter that I want to touch on, and that is that this Sunday there will be a fundraising walk held in Adelaide for the Trojan's Trek Foundation Ltd. Trojan's Trek is a veterans support program where veterans adversely affected by their service participate in an outback track with colleagues and professional support workers. The program is held in both Queensland and South Australia. Whilst the program in Queensland is financially supported by the state government, that has not always been the case in South Australia. Local Makin veteran Bill Bates will be participating in the fundraising walk, and I wish him well with both his walk and his fundraising. Bill is someone who has committed himself to supporting the veterans in South Australia through other activities as well, I know, because he was associated with and is a former president of the Tea Tree Gully RSL. He is absolutely committed to finding ways of supporting veterans who are finding it hard to readjust to life after their service. The Trojan's Trek is one way to be doing that, and he'll be raising some funds, and I wish him well in doing that. But I commend him for his efforts to support veterans in my state of South Australia. I close by saying this: we acknowledge our own veterans often, and rightly so. But I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the veterans who have come to Australia from overseas, who perhaps migrated to Australia from other countries. Whilst they didn't serve our country, in the same vein, I acknowledge their service to their country and acknowledge the hardships that they also quite often go through as a result of their military service. Many of them are people who served in Europe, some from Great Britain, our allies, who have since migrated to Australia. I simply want to make the point that, in acknowledging veterans today, I acknowledge all veterans, not just those who served Australia. 12:32 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise to speak on this Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and Their Families First) Bill 2019. Like other members of the House, this is the second time that I've had the honour to speak on this important bill, which lapsed, of course, at the end of the last parliament. Labor were proud to support this bill then and we're proud to support it now. The idea of a veterans' covenant was a policy pledged by Labor in September last year, based on the example of other countries and especially the UK. We were proud of this policy which pledged to support former and serving defence members by recognising the unique nature of military service and by giving government, business and the community a framework through which to do just that. We're proud to have shown national leadership on this issue, in close consultation with ex-service organisations, RSLs and DVA. It's commendable that the government has shown its support for the veterans covenant. We do have some reservations about the bill, which I'll return to shortly, but it's important to acknowledge that this is a vital area of multipartisan consensus, which we should celebrate and foster. Veterans policy is close to my heart not just because I live in Darwin—Darwin and Palmerston being among the moment important defence towns in our nation. It is also a vital area of policy to me because it goes to the foundational question of our values as a people and as a democracy. This is, helpfully, reflected in the word itself: 'covenant'. For members like me, who didn't cut their teeth as legal practitioners before coming to this place, it's helpful to recall the distinction between a contract and a covenant. A thorough Google search yields free legal advice that they are different in a number of important ways. Contracts are about interests. They're utilitarian, commercial and legally enforceable promises: 'If you do this for me, I'll do that for you.' A covenant is about values. They have been described as spiritual agreements. They help us create selfless other-regarding relationships. A contract is an agreement you can break when it suits you. Most contracts have clauses stipulating how one party can terminate it, which is often all that's needed to opt out. A contract is not personal; it's just business. But legal experts have called a covenant a perpetual promise. It can't be simply cancelled by a clever lawyerly arguments. A covenant can remain intact even if one party breaches it. For this reason is a covenant is not entered into lightly. It's not simply about advancing your own interests; it's about defending and promoting the interests of another. This gives covenants their most special quality: the fact that a covenant is not broken when one party walks away. The committed party can in fact continue to look after the other person even when they have given up. That can seem incredible and very impractical to us, but it points to the spiritual character of covenants. Another source, much older and more authoritative than Google, illustrates the archetypal covenant which most would be familiar with irrespective of their belief system: And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. A lot of people will remember that. I think it's important to reflect on what we mean when we speak of a veteran's covenant in light of these words. It's of more than academic or theological interest. The covenant between our nation and our armed forces is constitutive of our values as a people and in turn the values on which our shared democratic institutions rest. If we're honest, we have to recognise that the covenant between our nation and its armed forces was not always honoured and upheld equally by both parties. We do not need to attribute blame or to reopen any of those deep wounds in our community from the past—wounds that have, thankfully, mostly healed—but we should acknowledge the sad historical truth that, when the bonds between the nation and its uniformed men and women have been so strained, particularly during and after the Vietnam War, the lives of many of our veterans were profoundly disturbed, distressed and sometimes destroyed by this rupture. This is despite the fact that many Australian veterans of that war, as we know, were compelled by this House to serve; despite the fact that many veterans performed their military service with great distinction, whatever their views of that war were; and despite the fact that Australia's armed forces remained loyal in fulfilling their perpetual promise to our nation. It's important to recall this sad chapter in our history today to reflect on how far we've come as a nation since the 1970s, because this bill is about more than the Commonwealth procuring a new let of lapel pins and veteran cards; it's about ensuring that the uniqueness of our veteran service and contribution is nationally recognised and enshrined in law. It's about guaranteeing that we never repeat past mistakes in impugning returned or serving soldiers' personal integrity for wars which they did not choose to enter into, a responsibility which can be attributed only to the government of the day. It's about upholding the principle that our veterans should never treated in a lesser way than non-serving Australians. That's the crux of this bill's intent. It's important to note what this bill is not about. Australian veterans certainly don't want to be treated as more important members of society than the rest. From my perspective that's true. They don't expect to be called to board aeroplanes first. That's not the ethos of the Australian Defence Force and it's certainly not the ethos of the Australian people. What all serving Defence members and veterans expect, and rightfully so, is to receive equal treatment before the law and that means recognising in federal legislation that military service is completely different to most civilian vocations. For all of our bipartisan tributes to our veterans, what this House asks of current and former Defence members is still commonly misunderstood by the rest of society. We ask that Defence members give up a lot of personal autonomy and freedoms that other Australians enjoy and expect. We ask that they comply at all times with the orders of their chain of command on how to dress and where to live in Australia or overseas, often regardless of their preferences and usually at great cost to their personal and family lives. We ask and indeed expect that full-time and part-time Defence members, if called to do so by this government or this House, take up arms to protect Australia's strategic interests, and that they do violence professionally and ethically, with great restraint and great compassion, in the name of all Australians, whose flag they bear on their uniforms. These requirements have preciously few parallels in civilian life. As my colleague the member for Eden-Monaro, Dr Mike Kelly, testified on this bill, before the election, 'Military service carries with it unique and often unavoidable risks and dangers to the member's person.' As Mike movingly said, 'Even training exercises can be fatal. Even wearing ill-fitting boots and load-carriage equipment, like packs, can grind or pulp well-nigh every joint in your body. Even if you do your drills correctly and observe all safety precautions, that's just the nature of the vocation.' But it's not just your body's joints that inevitably suffer. In many ways they're the more visible and treatable wounds. It's the psychological, family, community and social joints in the lives of current serving personnel and particularly veterans that become irreversibly dislocated, damaged or destroyed, often in the oppressive silence of returned service members who feel so misunderstood, marginalised and lost in a civilian culture that has no categories to begin to listen to, let alone understand, what they've experienced. As the member for Eden-Monaro said, and I fully agree with him, 'Military service can make you feel like you literally speak a different language.' That's why social support, in the form of our ex-service organisations, RSLs and a properly resourced DVA, are so vital to achieving successful post-military reintegration. The psychosocial research is very clear on the fact that the onset of mental illness like PTSD is accelerated by civilian reintegration, especially where there is no support. The research shows that social support, post military service, is a key predictor of successfully preventing PTSD onset. That's why the lapel pins and the veterans cards that this bill will fund are important for our veterans. It's not about virtue signalling and certainly not about tokenism. It's about ensuring we can all recognise veterans among us and help to bear their burdens, which can metastasise in silence. It's about bringing society on board with the mission of supporting those whose job it is to keep our Commonwealth free, strong and safe from armed coercion and aggression. Our armed forces exist to defend not only our interests but our values, our democracy and our national existence. This bill is ultimately about strengthening the bonds of our nation to ensure we can weather the violent storms that will come, which is why I am proud to support this bill, it's why Labor is proud to support this bill and it's why Labor is proud to have worked in tandem with the ex-service organisations and with the minister to take national leadership on this. I noted Labor's reservations at the start of my remarks and these are longstanding and consistent. For one, we note that this bill does not cover those currently serving, which we see as a significant missing element. In addition, Labor has proposed that a reporting element be legislated requiring an annual statement to the House in relation to veterans and their loved ones. I note the minister recently gave a statement to the House. We were concerned about these omissions and referred this bill to a Senate inquiry to give veterans a chance to view the wording, provide input and be comfortable with the language. The Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommended on 22 March that the bill be passed. While we will not be moving any amendments to this bill, we continue to believe the current serving members and that a reporting element continue to be included for the life of this parliament. Labor's commitment to those who serve or have served is rock-solid and, as such, we welcome changes which increase recognition for veterans and their loved ones. While important, this bill isn't the only priority for serving and former Defence personnel around our country. In the NT, for instance, we lack a dedicated service centre to support current and ex-serving Defence personnel, first responders and their families. As I did in the House last week, I acknowledge the minister's visit to Darwin recently to begin consulting to ensure that we do have a wellbeing centre. Lacking such a centre does put us at odds with defence communities across the country. I believe that, with the territory being so critical to our force posture, it is an issue of great demand and great urgency. We have already done quite a bit of consultation, and it's great that that will be taken into account in the upcoming consultation. It's very important that such a wellbeing centre really cater for the families. They bear a great burden of the service that members of those families give to our nation. It will be an important link for those members to the broader community and to support services. It will also bring people with similar experiences and needs together. We need this wellbeing hub to connect people. It is an urgent issue, and I appreciate that there will be more consultation to come, but I believe we owe it to our veterans and we owe it to our country to make sure, as this bill states: The Commonwealth acknowledges that support for veterans should be provided in a way that respects their dignity as individuals, enhances their self-esteem, is sensitive to any physical or mental injury or disease they may have suffered and respects their military service The reason for this, as the covenant itself concludes, is simple: 'For what they have done, this we will do.' 12:47 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy We have 12,000 veterans in Townsville. We probably have the best part of 20,000 or 30,000 family and retired veterans in the greater Townsville region—most certainly in North Queensland. It is almost endemic in our soldiers now that, if they go to war, they will come home and suffer PTSD. There are some people out there who say: 'They're weak. They're not strong in themselves. They are a soft race that have been sent to war; they're not like the Second World War soldiers.' I'm one of the few people in this place who actually has memories of the boys coming home from the Second World War. I was born in 1945. At the age of 10, these people were just nine or 10 years out of uniform. Almost all the town—prominent citizens—had gone to war in my little town of Cloncurry. The modern soldier comes home from the very traumatic experience that warfare is, and he doesn't fit in. In the Second World War, it was the other way around. If you hadn't been to war, you didn't fit in. My father, who was booted out for being medically unfit, volunteered for overseas service. He volunteered before the war broke out because he could see it was going to break out. He carried a chip on his shoulder for the whole of his life that he didn't go to the war and that he was forced out of the Army. My grandfather on my mother's side, who was drafted into the Civil Defence Corps, carried a chip on his shoulder a mile high because he was not allowed to go to war. My great-grandfather and the great-grandfather of the honourable Leader of the House—our mutual great-grandfather—he wanted to go to war, and his father told him he couldn't. Only one of the boys could go, and they tossed the coin. I suppose the honourable Leader of the House and I were lucky that the coin went the way it went, because our great-grandfather's brother went to Gallipoli, and he's still at Gallipoli. He will always be at Gallipoli. In a terrible tragedy for our family. His namesake, Bert Henley, died some years after; his health was broken when he was released from Changi Prison and he died some years afterwards. So we lost two members of our family to two wars. The point I'm making is that the people that didn't go didn't fit in. They came back to a society that was totally dominated by the people that had gone to war. In my family, on both sides, in all of the pictures of them they are all in uniform. Whether they were women or whether they were men, everyone was in uniform. So they were the norm. I have asked myself a million times: why were the people that came home from the Second World War far more able to deal with life than the people that didn't go to the war? Now the people that go to the war are far less able to deal with life than the people that didn't go to the war. Of course the reason is that they came back to a society that was completely dominated by the people that had gone to the war. Even this chamber 10 years after the war—I'd say at least half of the chamber were people that had been in the war. They got free education when they came back from the Second World War. There were soldier settler blocks made available to them. To a very large degree, the country did everything that was humanly possible to roll out the red carpet. Ben Chifley, the finest Prime Minister that the country has ever seen by a long way, built 26,000 homes, and most of those homes went to the people coming back from the war. They were the heroes and they were the mainstream of Australian society. These people are very much not the mainstream of society. Unfortunately a lot of our culture showed pictures of people coming home from Vietnam damaged, and the pro-communist brigade—let me be very specific. Bill Hayden, the Labor Treasurer and Labor leader in this place, said that Evatt's conduct eviscerated the ALP to a point where we lived in political oblivion for 26 straight years. Evatt had six staff as Leader of the Opposition in this place, and two of them were leaking documents to the KGB. In one of the most extraordinary happenings that this place has ever seen, Mr Evatt got up here and claimed that he could prove that these two people had not been effectively spies for the communists. He could prove it. He waved this letter around, and the letter was from Molotov, who was the minister of foreign affairs and the minister for the KGB. That was proof that they weren't working for the KGB. The other side of parliament exploded in laughter, of course, and the ALP were white with shock and horror, because the downside of this was going to be oblivion for them for many, many years to come, as it was. We move from a period where this nation was very under very great threat from communism. There were 500,000 members of the Communist Party. Sukarno had become a puppet of the communists and he was invading the surrounding countries. He invaded New Guinea; he invaded Borneo. I, as a young man, was handed an SLR—there was a 24-hour call-up—to go and fight the war against Indonesia, delightfully called Konfrontasi. You can call it what you want, but, as far as I was concerned, I had a rifle, I was being sent up there and someone was going to shoot me and try to kill me when I got up there. Their army was 20 times the size of our Army. Communism was very real. The history books now read that communism died in Vietnam. The expansion of communism died in Vietnam. The last Governor-General said this on Vietnam day: 'The history books are now read and the communists never took another state.' Until that time, every two years after the war, they gobbled up a new country. One of the countries they gobbled up was China, the biggest country on earth. They most certainly had India on their side and they most certainly had the Arab states that came together on their side, so there wasn't much left on our side. A quarter of Europe was part of the USSR at that stage. So the world was threatened. Now we know that the heroes were the people who fought and died in Vietnam. At the time, it was a very questionable war, and it was seen that way by the population. Many of my generation didn't want to go to war. They were scared, and you can't blame them for being scared. It was not anywhere near as clear cut as it is now. History takes a long-term view. The world, not Australia, owes Vietnam vets so much, because, of all the great upheavals in human history, by far and away the worst was communism. Stalin was responsible for the direct murder or indirect deaths of 28 million people and every history book now reads that Mao Tse-tung was responsible for the deaths of 48 million people. That does not include the upheavals in Africa caused by the communists and the upheavals in Asia caused by the communists. Many tens of millions would be added to that list if you put those people in. So it's the worst scourge the world has ever seen—worse than slavery, worse than 'the Sword of Allah', as he called himself, who murdered four per cent of the world's population; worse than any of those people. When we are talking about vets affairs we are still mainly talking about the people who fought in Vietnam. Our treatment of them has been absolutely lamentable. There were my six best friends through primary school and through secondary school and my cousin, who was my best friend—a groomsman at my wedding. My cousin's best friend drank himself to death and his best friend was busily trying to drink himself to death. There are so many people that I know and am friends with who were treated so shabbily, and the great heroes who crushed communism are treated so shabbily. Now, let me turn to the DVA. I urge the minister to consider that it has failed. You could not watch that 60 Minutes show or the Four Corners show on people who did away with themselves. I thought the previous speaker was dead accurate in everything that he said. I just wish Mike Kelly were here as well to say these things. Clearly, it was the interaction with the DVA that caused the horrific results that were shown on 60 Minutes and Four Corners. I deliberately watched both programs and recorded one of them so I could watch it again, because I represent so many of these people. I represent the Northern Beaches of Townsville and I represent where a lot of veterans retired—the coast up to Cairns and Cairns itself. Some of those people come under my responsibility. Those of us at the coalface can clearly see a situation where anxiety comes in at a low level and then becomes a problem. They then go along and see the DVA, and then anxiety turns into trauma—and, from then on, we are in an absolute disaster zone. I don't know what transpires—and I'm not going to take up the time of the House going into what may transpire. All I can say is that the DVA is a department that has failed totally and miserably. There is only one way that this can be addressed, and I officially and publicly call upon the minister to abolish the department and replace it by a board, an authority, consisting of people who have actually fought in the wars and been in the Army—and a majority of them not senior ranking officers but NCOs and ORs. Having served a lot of my life in the Army—and, whilst it was in the militia, it was on a war footing; so it was anything but a militia at the time—I believe that the only way this problem can be overcome is by putting the people that have been through it, and are going through it, in charge of the administration of veterans affairs in this country. It is not suitable for a government department to be running this, and clearly the government department has failed and failed miserably. In Townsville, they ran in the newspaper a front-page, massive article on homelessness. I conclude on this note: we can't even provide a home for the people that destroyed communism throughout the world. We can't even provide a roof over their head. 13:01 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I'd like to thank all members who contributed to the debate on this bill, the Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and Their Families First) Bill 2019, and acknowledge the continued tradition of bipartisan support for the veteran community demonstrated by the opposition. As the Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel, I have had the privilege to speak with Australians from all walks of life and hear firsthand how the community respects our Defence Force personnel, veterans and families. This bill provides recognition and acknowledges that the people of Australia value our Defence Force and those who have committed to defending our nation. Of course, as a government, we are absolutely committed to our Australian Defence Force personnel and putting veterans and their families first. This bill will provide an Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant, allowing all Australians to make an oath to acknowledge, support and pay respect to all who have served, those who continue to serve our country, and the families who support them in that service. The covenant will also be supported by the introduction of the veteran card and a veteran and reservist lapel pin as part of the wider veteran recognition package. This recognition package will enable the Australian community and businesses to recognise our veterans and our Defence Force personnel in their own way. Simply put, this is a way Australians can say to our defence veterans and the veteran community broadly: thank you for your service. In developing the covenant and the broader recognition package, the government consulted widely with veterans and ex-service organisations to develop an understanding of the unique nature of military service and the challenges that veterans and their families face following their transition into civilian life. The consultations have been a very productive, with overwhelming support from the ex-service community. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those ex-service organisations and individuals who have called for a covenant. I thank them for their positive contributions and commitment to seeing the covenant enshrined into law. The creation of the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant will align Australia to other Commonwealth countries, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, who have in-principle covenants, providing solid evidence of their support for their veterans. This bill also includes a statement in relation to the beneficial nature of veterans legislation, supporting the principles that decisions be made fairly, justly, consistent with legislation and similar type claims and, importantly, in a timely manner so that the public may have trust and confidence in the determinations made. While we acknowledge the intent of the amendments made in the Senate, we do hold some concerns around changes seeking to have all claims under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act determined within 90 days. There are circumstances when 90 days is not necessarily appropriate, because of the complexity of the veterans' individual circumstances, so it is an essential that our focus continues to be on the needs of the individual veteran, first and foremost, not on time frames. Nevertheless, our government remains absolutely committed to progressing veterans' claims as quickly as possible. The Australian people expect that the welfare of veterans and their families should be our priority and, as I've said previously, this government is committed to putting veterans and their families first. Our government has committed nearly $500 million to date to fund the biggest transformation in the history of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This investment is about building a better experience for veterans and their families, making it faster, simpler and easier for veterans and their families to access the services and support they need whenever and wherever they need it. And we are starting to see the benefits of this investment, with more than 100,000 veterans having signed up for our digital platform, MyService, and over 66,000 claims have been lodged. We have streamlined decision-making on 40 commonly claimed conditions, with the decisions in some instances happening instantly. Since the transformation commenced, we are seeing improvements in veterans' interaction with DVA. The MyService users are overwhelmingly satisfied with the experience, rating the platform 4.5 out of five stars. We are also seeing these improvements borne out in the satisfaction survey, with the overall satisfaction rate of veterans increasing year on year, and increasing most notably amongst those under 45. More broadly, our government continues to make meaningful and important investments to improve veteran services, including: enhancing the mental health support available to veterans, improving the transition process and ensuring a focus on individual need, improving employer support, and expanding the support available to veterans' families. This legislation is part of an ongoing journey to transform the culture of DVA in favour of those currently serving in the Australian Defence Force, our veterans and their families. Our government remains absolutely committed to acknowledging the service and sacrifice of the men and women who defend this nation and to putting veterans and their families first. I commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 10 13:07 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019 11

Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019

Second Reading 11 13:07 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin The Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019 is the bill that we have been discussing in this place for some time, known as the 'big stick bill'. What it does is it introduces new prohibitions and remedies that target misconduct in electricity markets. The bill targets prohibited conduct in three important areas. The first is retail pricing, which aims to ensure that retailers pass on sustained reductions in cost to electricity customers. The second is contract liquidity, which aims to ensure that generators, including gentailers, do not refuse to offer financial contracts for anti-competitive purposes, essentially to ensure suppliers do not withhold supply in the contract market to increase prices and profits. And the third area is wholesale pricing, which aims to ensure that generators don't manipulate the wholesale electricity market to increase prices and increase their profits as a consequence. What happens under this bill is that businesses which are determined by the ACCC to have engaged in prohibitive conduct can be subject to an escalating schedule of punishments from the ACCC, including: a public warning notice, an infringement notice, a court enforceable undertaking, application to a court for an injunction, and an application to a court for a pecuniary penalty. I think what's received the most attention—for good reason—as we have discussed this bill and its predecessor are the more serious instances of misconduct, which, under the arrangements in this bill, could be met with divestment orders or contracting orders. These are, as I said, for the more serious instances, where the ACCC reasonably believes that a person or a business has done the wrong thing, where there can be more extreme steps taken to right the wrong that has been done to a customer. I think the most important point that I can make today is that this is a very different bill to the bill which was proposed in the last parliament—a bill we opposed at the time. Since then, some months ago, there have been some steps taken by the government, but there need to be some further steps taken to make the bill acceptable to us on this side of the House. It was an incredibly controversial bill when it was first moved in this place during the course of the 45th Parliament. As the member for McMahon and others pointed out at the time, the original bill did have the capacity to do substantial harm rather than substantial good. There was a very real prospect and a very genuine concern that the original bill put forward in the 45th Parliament would have chilled investment in one of the most sensitive sectors—a sector which is crying out for more investment and more certainty—and had the potential and the capacity, and the likelihood, even, to make the problems in our energy market worse rather than better. This bill, unlike the original version, removes the possibility that divestment orders will be used to privatise publicly owned generation assets. That was one of the key concerns that we raised during the course of the last parliament, and it is good to see that some steps have been taken to make sure that full privatisation can't occur. We'll also make clear, when I get to our amendments in a moment, that there are further steps that need to be taken in order for us to support the bill, in terms of closing down the capacity for partial privatisation as well. The government's changes since the last version of the bill ensure that a government owned asset that is divested remains in public hands. That is very important to us on this side of the House. The change was made after Labor and others, including state governments, raised their concerns. So we are pleased to see that the government took those concerns seriously and updated the bill accordingly when they re-presented it in this parliament. One of the other issues that we had was that we thought the original version of this bill was too heavy-handed on the divestment side when it came to ministerial discretion. Again, we welcome the changes to the bill which mean there is a more central role for the ACCC and also for the Federal Court. In the case of a divestment order, the Treasurer, based on ACCC advice, must now seek a divestment order from the Federal Court. The increased role of the ACCC and the Federal Court has addressed some of the concerns from some investors in the energy sector and, indeed, some of the concerns that we raised during the course of the last parliament. I think it is fair to say that the changes which have been made and the public debate that has occurred since the presentation of the first bill do vindicate the position that we took then and the position that we're taking now. The bill last time was not a good bill worthy of the support of this place. We believe that, with some additional amendments, the version of the bill that has been presented in this term of parliament is worthy of the House's support because some of the worst aspects of the bill, as I said, have been largely addressed. There are a couple of exceptions to that, though. My colleague the member for Hindmarsh will move some detailed amendments when he gets his opportunity to speak after question time. He will move three additional amendments which go to our remaining concerns about partial privatisation and about a review of the operation of the bill, but also ensure that the transfer of business arrangements in the Fair Work Act can apply here so that workers are not unfairly impacted in the event of divestment. There will be three detailed amendments. The Treasurer and I have been in discussions about the amendments. As I understand it, unless something has changed since this morning, we will be welcoming the government's support for our amendments in return for our support for the bill overall. They are sensible amendments. I suspect they are largely issues that have taken some time to come to light. It is good to see that the government is prepared to support those amendments when we move them. If and when that happens, we are prepared to support the broader bill. If other issues around workforce and other relevant considerations pop up in the course of the Senate inquiry, after the bill travels through this place and goes to the other place, they can be interrogated in that process and then we should all—collectively, both sides of the House—use our best endeavours to address those as well. Although this bill now, with the amendments I've just discussed, is worthy of the House's support, I think it is also worth noting that, given power prices have risen substantially—wholesale power prices are up 158 per cent since 2015—there is a substantial and understandable level of scepticism in the community about the government's record, ability and willingness to address one of the key cost-of-living pressures on Australian families. This bill won't do anything substantial to end what has become an energy crisis under those opposite. Whenever we ask them about energy in question time or at other opportunities, they always want to talk about us. They are in their seventh year of office and their third term. They have to take responsibility for the fact that wholesale power prices have gone up substantially, and this bill will not substantially address that issue. Australia is suffering through the worst energy crisis in decades. It is not good enough that, in their third term and seventh year, there is no settled and sensible overarching energy policy. There's nothing which will create the policy and investment certainty which business need to invest in clean, reliable and affordable power. That is the main unattended and unaddressed issue, even after this bill passes through this place. The bill won't do anything to build the transmission we need to support a modern industry system. It will do nothing to modernise market rules so consumers and businesses can take advantage of the technological revolution currently underway across our energy system and across the world. That's why I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Government has proven unable to deliver sensible national energy policy to support well-functioning electricity markets that will: (1) support new clean energy investment; (2) safeguard energy reliability and security; and (3) deliver a modern and affordable energy system for a modern Australian economy". As I said, on this government's watch power prices have skyrocketed, smashing household budgets and jeopardising thousands of manufacturing jobs. After 16 attempts the government has been unable to agree on a national energy policy to resolve this energy crisis. The lack of policy from the Liberal government has been cited by the Finkel review, AEMO, the Energy Security Board, industry and Infrastructure Australia as driving up costs in our system. If that side of the House were serious about ending the energy crisis, the government would come back to the table on the National Energy Guarantee, which the Prime Minister and the Treasurer both said would bring down power prices by an average of $550 a year, according to the government's own modelling. Instead we have a jumble of policies, no vision, no guiding principle and no policy coherence, because the most extreme members of the government backbench call the shots on energy policy. As I have said before, when it comes to the Liberal Party, the tail wags the Treasurer when it comes to energy policy. It has been a defining failure of the last six-and-a-bit years, the last two-and-a-bit terms, that the government hasn't been able to come up with a settled energy policy. That's why we have got not just rising prices, with a 158 per cent wholesale price increase since 2015, but all of the associated issues around uncertainty when it comes to investment in the system. As one would expect, in my role I spend a lot of time in the boardrooms of this country. Sometimes business want to talk to me about the skills shortage. Sometimes they want to talk to me about a lack of demand in the economy or a lack of productivity. Often they want to talk about infrastructure or technology. There is only one issue that gets raised with me at every single discussion that I have with the business community—probably 100 or so this year alone. The only thing that gets raised every single time is energy policy, and the lack of a settled energy policy. I think it's fair to say that in the last parliament, when the government proposed the National Energy Guarantee, it wasn't everything that we wanted and wasn't exactly how we would design it, but we had decided on our side of the House that, in the interests of certainty and getting something settled, we were prepared to support the government. The only problem there was three or four outliers on the government backbench determined that the government wouldn't put that National Energy Guarantee to the parliament for us to support it. If they had done so, we would have a settled energy policy right now. The business community rightly and understandably just can't get why this place can't settle on energy policy, whether it be the National Energy Guarantee or something else. That lies at the core and the heart of so much of the uncertainty which is flowing through the rest of the economy. We've had the lowest, slowest economic growth in this country for 10 years. We have almost two million Australians looking for work or more work. Productivity and living standards are falling. We have wage stagnation. People feel like no matter how hard they work they can't keep up with the cost of electricity and child care and all the rest of it. Business investment is at its lowest level since the early 1990s recession. For all of these reasons, we need a settled energy policy in this country. We support the big stick legislation with the amendments that the member for Hindmarsh will propose, subject to the government agreeing to those. We can agree on the legislation as a whole and send to it the other place. But we need to do more in this House and in this country to get a settled energy policy so that business can invest with confidence and families can get the downward pressure on energy prices that they need and deserve. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the amendment seconded? Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 13:23 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019. I might begin where the member for Rankin left off, and that is that the energy policy on this side of the House is very settled, because the energy policy on this side of the House is to make sure that we are on the side of everyday Australians, sorting out and making sure that we help everyday Australians to lower the costs of living. It's the exact opposite of what Labor has been trying to do for many, many months now, and even before the election, when they voted repeatedly against this legislation. We have seen time and time again that the Labor members' policy is very unsettled. In fact, we have here the member for Hunter, who has gotten as close to anyone on the Labor side to settling national energy policy, because he said the Labor Party should join with the coalition. He said we should be adopting the targets that the Morrison government put to the people of Australia in May, which the people of Australia thoroughly endorsed at the May election. The member for Hunter has come around, but the member for Rankin most certainly hasn't yet. The reason that he hasn't come around is that while he's trying to misrepresent our position when it comes to energy and power prices, he has never seen a tax that he doesn't like. The member for Rankin looks for any opportunity to reach into the pockets of Australians. We saw that with the carbon tax. We saw that with the debate that they are still having about implementing a carbon tax. Indeed, we know that is the greatest threat to increasing power prices for Australians, because nothing will drive power prices up more than the Labor Party continuing to adopt this position on implementing a carbon tax—a position that the member for Rankin no doubt supports, as I've said, given that he has never met a tax that he hasn't wanted to implement and force on the Australian people. In contrast, it is this government that has already implemented a number of measures that have helped reduce power prices or keep power prices down, as low as possible, for the Australian people. We've already seen hundreds of thousands of individuals and small businesses across Australia benefit from the changes that we have made. They're receiving a better deal because of the pressure that we put on big energy companies to put customers first, by moving them off high-priced standing offers. We continue to build on these actions to drive down power prices with the introduction of the price safety net, by banning confusing discounting practices and sneaky late payment fees, and by introducing the retailer reliability obligation to deliver reliable, 24/7 affordable power. While the member for Rankin comes in here and tries to characterise Labor now supporting the bill as being because we have made changes to this bill, the real situation is that the member for Rankin and other Labor members have finally come around to the government's way of thinking, and that is to be on the side of everyday Australians. At the crux of it, the amendments that the member for Rankin is talking about are simply to demonstrate the intent that we've always had for this bill, and that is that it is not an open door to privatisation—divestment is always the last resort—but that it is to put pressure on the big energy companies to sort out current practices, which the ACCC has described as being 'unsustainable and unacceptable'. In the ACCC's report on their inquiry into the national energy market, which was requested and established by this government back in March 2017, they called the current energy market and how it's performing for consumers 'unsustainable and unacceptable'. What part of that report could Labor members have found acceptable and a good enough excuse to vote against this legislation the number of times that they did before the election? It is quite clear from reading the ACCC's account of the current energy market that something significant had to be done, and that is why the Morrison government put forward this legislation. The ACCC found that retailers played a major role in the poor outcome for consumers. Now, if a market is not acting in the way that it should for consumers, we on this side of the House make a commitment to introduce competition, and that's what we're doing with this bill. Unlike Labor, when we make a commitment to the Australian people, we keep it, which is why we have pursued the bill over the opposition from Labor members to its conclusion now. We gave a commitment to Australians that we would take action when it came to the energy sector and that we understood community expectations are not being met. This bill represents strong action to respond to wrongdoings and put in place measures that will both maintain supply and work to keep energy prices low. The measures will strengthen competition and put downward pressure on prices. As I said, the bill is addressing a key issue that comes from the ACCC inquiry—that, in the wholesale market, a lack of competition is resulting in higher prices, and, in the contract market, a lack of liquidity can present a barrier to entry. The measures in this bill that the Treasurer has outlined will rectify these practices and allow Australians to have access to affordable, reliable energy. We have already made headway in this space, as I have previously mentioned. Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, I was wondering whether the member might give way, under standing order 66A, so I can ask him a question? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 Is the member willing to give way to the member for Hunter? Mr SIMMONDS 282983 No. I'm on a roll! Thank you very much, though. I'm on a roll explaining just how the measures that the government has already introduced are making a difference to power prices for everyday Australians. In January, over 458,000 Australians and 39,000 small businesses received a better deal, thanks to the pressure we put on the big energy companies to put customers first by moving them off high-priced standing offers, and we are continuing to build on these actions, as I said, with the price safety net and now this bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43 and the debate maybe resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 14 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Climate Change 14 13:30 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I rise today to support the declaration of a climate emergency by this parliament. The people of Australia have been clear in their support for this declaration, with more than 400,000 signing the e-petition, which I know the member for Warringah plans to table today. In my own electorate, there is strong support for action to tackle climate change. I have received numerous calls and emails from constituents asking me to fight for action and yet all we get from this government is denial. Following Greta Thunberg's UN speech, the Prime Minister said the climate debate subjected children to 'needless anxiety'. He said that young people needed more context and perspective on the issue and that we should 'let kids be kids'. The proposition that passionate and vocal young women should just shut up and be kids is offensive. We should not discourage young people and our community more broadly from standing up for what they believe in and arguing for the future because, without serious action to tackle climate change, there are serious consequences for our young people, consequences acknowledged by experts such as the AMA, who have warned that we will all suffer because of the effects of climate change. I put my full support behind the member for Hindmarsh's motion on behalf of the Labor Party demanding the declaration of a climate emergency by this parliament. Let's set the culture wars aside and all get on board with a genuine approach to combatting climate change. Wide Bay Electorate 14 13:31 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Maryborough has a rich military history which is being honoured through a range of projects that tell the story of the city's involvement in the Great War. I was pleased to recently open the new murals at the Maryborough RSL painted by a local artist Robbyn Gergos to commemorate the armistice ending the First World War in 1918. These murals reflect the service and sacrifice of the Australian defence forces and take pride of place in the RSL's memorial garden. The beautiful painted mural collection is a fitting tribute to our former serving personnel and adds to the rich compilation of other murals that decorate Maryborough. Robbyn has created poignant and reflective work in her mural masterpiece that inspires both remembrance and respect. The murals were made possible through the $11,170 Australian government Armistice Centenary grant paid to the Maryborough RSL sub-branch. I'm pleased the coalition government is investing in Maryborough's military heritage through projects including the landmark Gallipoli to Armistice memorial, for which I commend Nancy Bates and Greig Bolderrow, and the Maryborough Military and Colonial Museum, magnificently curated by John Myers. Each of these places tell of bravery, service and sacrifice and are a must see for any visitor to Maryborough. Randazzo, Antonino (Tony), OAM 15 13:33 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise to speak about Antonino (Tony) Randazzo, OAM, who sadly passed away in Darwin last week. Tony was an extremely well regarded and respected member of the Northern Territory community, and a valued and loved member of the Italian community in Darwin and of the Catholic church. Tony arrived in Perth from Italy at the beginning of the 1950s. He picked tomatoes and worked in sawmills in WA and sent some dollars back to his family in Italy, who were struggling after the war. But he then headed for opportunity in Darwin in 1953 and, arriving alone with little English, rolled up his sleeves and got to work in the Territory construction industry and had been hard at it ever since. A beloved husband of Giovanna, father of Carlo and Paolo, father-in-law of Kirstin and Maria, grandfather to Connor, Allegra, Imogen, Jacob and Chiara, he was a Territory pioneer who made his mark on Darwin. Tony's son Carlo said about him, 'He had a wonderful sense of humour and was always looking to poke fun at life.' Paolo said he was always looking after the ones he loved. Tony: thank you for everything that you've done for the Territory and for helping to develop Australia's northern capital. Rest in peace. Daniel Morcombe Foundation: Day for Daniel 15 13:34 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax On 7 December 2003, a most depraved and sickening act took place on the Sunshine Coast, where a boy was abducted and murdered. He was 13, and his name was Daniel Morcombe. Daniel's parents, Bruce and Denise, have since established the Daniel Morcombe Foundation, which really is Daniel's legacy, as it educates, particularly, children and young people on the importance of personal safety. How they do it, I don't know—but they do, and I for one am eternally grateful that they do. There are approximately 25,000 young people reported missing in Australia every single year. Thank God the vast majority of those are found safely within 24 hours, but a lot are not. It is vitally important that we take the inspiration from the Morcombes as far more than just turning a tragedy into a message of hope, but as a call to arms: that each of us have a responsibility to take care of children. Tomorrow, on this side of the parliament and across the aisles, we'll be wearing our red badges in memory of Daniel on the Day for Daniel. Household and Personal Debt 15 13:36 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley For more than four years now, the government have known that the payday lending industry is out of control and the loan sharks are ripping off more than 800,000 families every day. But, whilst the government continues to ignore this growing crisis, we find out that one of the biggest payday lenders, Cash Converters, has agreed to pay $42.5 million to settle a class action by Maurice Blackburn lawyers against the company, on behalf Queenslanders who took out consumer credit loans with the payday lenders. The class action alleged the company breached the state's credit laws by effectively charging borrowers interest rates of more than 175 per cent a year, with more than 60 per cent of the people involved in the case having annual incomes of somewhere between $12,000 and $35,999—people who had been doing it tough every single day, only to be ripped off by a company which makes millions. You'd think a $42 million settlement might send a strong message, but shares in Cash Converters spiked a massive 30 per cent on the news—a slap in the face for the 68,000 people in this lawsuit and for the hundreds and thousands who are continuing to be ripped off. To make it worse, the Assistant Treasurer was quoted in the media last week as saying they were still 'processing' the changes to be legislated relating to small amount credit contracts—four years, and they were still making up their minds. When will the government take action? You are ripping off Australians. It's time this government took action to defend vulnerable Australians. Flynn Electorate: Community Events 15 13:38 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn On Saturday 9 October, I attended the Thangool race day near Biloela. There were good crowds, a good field of horses and good community events. There has been some rain in that area, which has been drought-stricken for several years. There are hints of green grass coming through, but, overall, it is still very dry. I also attended the JBOYS annual function on Saturday night. A celebrity guest at the fundraiser was Andrew Gee, a former rugby league player for the Broncos. A three-course meal prepared by celebrity chefs Matt Golinski and Glen Barratt was enjoyed. The JBOYS committee was formed in 2016, after a tragic single road accident claimed the life of 17-year-old Jimmy Bryant. Jimmy had only had his licence for 10 days. The committee got together after that, and they are now sending a lot of students to the driver training schools at Gympie and also at Gladstone. The first year they had 48 students from Biloela high attend this training, and, in 2018, they reached their 200th student for training. This is a very important initiative from the Biloela community, and I wish them very well and hope that the scheme can keep going for many more years to come. Household and Personal Debt 16 13:39 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor Imagine the surprise today for the member for Oxley, for the member for Whitlam, and for me when we found that Cash Converters has settled in a class action in which 68,000 Queenslanders, represented by Maurice Blackburn, were suing the company for being in breach of Queensland law. Meanwhile, in the federal parliament, we have waited for four years for those opposite to bring into law what has been in draft legislation for three years after a review. But there is no action on that side. The member for Deakin is culpable in this space. Let me tell you that we on this side will not give up on this issue. We will continue to stand at every opportunity to call out the payday lenders and this government, which has failed to stop them. All of this could be avoided—the exploitation limited, the misery and despair curtailed—with action from this government, with action from the member for Deakin. The class action highlights this government's inaction in an area that has nominal bipartisan support, an area that former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said would be acted upon this year! But still we wait, and every sitting day the member for Deakin walks through that door, completely unashamed of the fact that he will not protect Australians from payday loan sharks. Rural and Regional Services 16 13:41 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Last Sunday, I was back in Barker to officially open the Freeling Agriculture, Recreation and Multi-use Centre, or the FARM centre, as it's known. Regional Australia is critical to our government's plan to drive economic growth and secure more and better paying jobs. Regional Australia is a key driver of the Australian economy and it's important we ensure there remain great places to live. Regions with good infrastructure, good roads, good communications and good services are likely to remain vibrant, strong communities where people want to live and work. Our government is investing $841 million in the Building Better Regions Fund in order to create jobs, drive economic growth and build stronger regional communities into the future. The FARM centre is a perfect example of a project that is doing just that. It's a brand new facility in Australia's animal fodder production bowl that provides a space for agricultural trade shows, events and community sport. Providing a space for export oriented trade shows and events will increase opportunities for local businesses to grow international exports, which will increase production and jobs in the region. As well, there is space for training and education activities and for the fodder industry, which facilitates productivity improvements for local growers. The project will also deliver social benefits in the region by improving community connections, rural shows, events and sports, including basketball, netball, cricket and the AFL. This is a $4.8 million project, supported by $2.1 million in government support and $600,000 from the community. Congratulations to everyone involved. (Time expired) PETITIONS 16 PETITIONS Climate Change 16 13:42 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah by leave—I rise to present a historic petition signed by 404,538 fellow Australians, who are calling on their parliament to take urgent action on climate change. In doing so, I note the petition has been approved by the Standing Committee on Petitions. The petition read as follows— Petition Reason: The overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the world have concluded that the climate is changing at unprecedented rates due to anthropogenic causes. The result of these changes will be catastrophic for future generations, and so we must act now to minimise both human and environmental destruction. Petition Request: We therefore ask the House to immediately act and declare a climate emergency in Australia. And introduce legislation that will with immediacy and haste reduce the causes of anthropogenic climate change. from 404,538 citizens (Petition No. EN1041) Petition received. Ms STEGGALL 175696 This is a demonstration of grassroots action. It was initiated by Mr Noah Bell, a resident of Sydney, who joins us today. In Noah's own words, this petition is about 'a plurality of voices demanding that the government accept the science and act accordingly'. The request in this petition is straightforward. It calls on this House and my fellow MPs to immediately act and declare a climate emergency in Australia, and introduce legislation that will, with immediacy and haste, reduce the causes of anthropogenic climate change. The petition took on a life on its own, eventually gaining hundreds of thousands of names from all over Australia in four weeks. I urge my fellow members to contemplate on that. Each of those names is an individual with a story, a voice, a network and a vote. We, as the 46th Parliament, have a duty to the Australian people that goes beyond partisan allegiances. It is time for all of us to be accountable. Let's listen to the people and take meaningful action on climate change. I commend the petition to the House— (Time expired) STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 17 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Heritage Burnie 10 17 13:44 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon Congratulations to everyone involved in making this year's Heritage Burnie 10 another great success. The race attracts elite runners from all over the world and, just as importantly, it challenges everyone in our local community to get active, whether you walk, jog, run or wheel. The Burnie 10 has grown over its 35 years to become Australia's premiere 10-kilometre race. That's an incredible achievement and only possible because of the expertise, dedication and tireless contribution of our volunteers and supportive businesses. The Heritage was again this year's premier partner. The Heritage is our local speciality cheesemaker. If you aren't familiar with the product, do yourself a favour and try the South Cape, King Island Dairy and Tasmanian Heritage range of cheeses. Our other sponsors this year included RACT, Southern Cross, McDonald's, The Advocate, 7BU, Sea FM, Image Signs and Promotions, De Bruyn’s Transport, Stubbs Constructions, Tasports, ParaQuad Tasmania, Terry White Chemmart, Wellers Inn, Gowans Ford and Intersport. So, no matter where you live in Australia, next October why not book a holiday to Tasmania, on the beautiful north-west coast, and, while you're there, have a go at the Burnie Ten. Vidot, Mr Nicholas 17 13:45 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley After 12 years as principal of St Andrew's College and a career in education spanning over 40 years, Nicholas Vidot has recently retired and I want to recognise him today. When he became the principal of St Andrew's in 2007, the college was made up of two separate campuses: Holy Family and John Paul II. During his time as principal, he wove together the processes and cultures of these distinct campuses, combining them into one community. Nic's mantra, 'People are important; people do matter', led St Andrew's to adopt an approach to make learning self-directed and personalised for each student. During his time as principal, almost 2,000 students graduated from the college to either enter the workforce or pursue further studies. On his retirement, a former St Andrew's College assistant principal Shauna Nash said, 'Thank you, Nic, for the leadership, the vision and the precision you brought to St Andrew's college.' This quote encapsulates the gratitude of the school and community towards Nic and my appreciation of him also. I want to acknowledge the presence of Nic and his wife, Elizabeth, who are joining us here today in the public gallery. Thank you, Nic, not only for your dedication but also your belief in the potential of Western Sydney students. I wish you all the very best in your retirement. Please enjoy it and know that our gratitude and our deepest thanks go with you. Hinkler Electorate: Shopping Locally 17 13:47 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler As you know, Shop Small was in town and in parliament last night. Why is shopping local important? Because it means shopping with local businesses, which means using local jobs that support local kids in particular around Christmas time. It means driving local economies. I say to everyone out there who might be listening to this on the broadcast: if you're spending at Christmas time and you want to get your purse or wallet out, get downtown and make sure you're shopping local. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, you are waiting with anticipation to see what in my electorate you can buy from local shops. Firstly, you need to bang at the door of Buck's Butcher Shoppe in Childers—their speciality is Buck's ducks. That is what they are very keen on in Childers. There's Nanna's Pantry—not your mum's mum but Nanna's Pantry, the shop, There's also One Little Farm and Avenell Brothers. Mr Speaker, I know you're very keen on your bling, particularly for your good wife, so get down to Warner's Jewellers, if you want to get the right stuff. The Bath House, Jake's Candy, Bundy Rum, Kalki Moon all have some great gift ideas. Get the seafood from my electorate, whether it's at the Red Shed, Urangan Seafoods or Harvey Bay Cold Stores. That is where you get the best prawns, the best scallops and the best reef fish. It's all there and it's all available. I know you like a beach holiday or a beach visit, Mr Deputy Speaker. Get down to Hervey Bay, Woodgate, Bargara or Burrum. That's where it's all happening. The kids will love it. You can go fishing, you play golf, you can buy what you need locally and you can support local jobs and local economies. Central Coast Food Alliance 18 13:48 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell The Central Coast is traditionally a food-growing area and our Hinterland remains a productive farming region. The Central Coast Food Alliance was recently launched to grow our reputation as a food bowl, bringing together industry and research food manufacturers. It is one of only four clusters across Australia to be funded through Food Innovation Australia Limited, an industry-led not-for-profit that is focused on growing a share of Australian food in the global marketplace by sharing knowledge, building capacity and creating connections. The Central Coast Food Alliance brings emerging food manufacturers together with established manufacturers like Mars Food and Sanitarium to network, share best practice and make a big impact on out-of-area markets. Congratulations to Central Coast Industry Connect, RDA Central Coast, Ourimbah Campus of the University of Newcastle, Mars and Sanitarium for launching the alliance. The Central Coast Food Alliance general manager, Dan Farmer, said the alliance is about creating jobs in our region. Michelle Amor and Tracey Rochford of Spiralz Fermented Foods, Tuggerah, are already benefiting. Spiralz was one of six businesses chosen from 224 nationally to be recipients of the Mars SEEDS of CHANGE Accelerator Program. The program is designed to help early-stage food focussed businesses build a healthier and more sustainable future by fast-tracking their growth as they shape the meals of tomorrow. Thank you to Dan Farmer and Frank Sammut, the executive officer of Central Coast Industry Connect, for joining me at Spiralz. I'm expecting big things from the Central Coast Food Alliance. Congratulations to all involved. Broadband 18 13:50 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Yesterday, sadly I missed an opportunity to speak on the member for Boothby's fine motion on the NBN rollout. This time for statements gives me an opportunity to report that 98 per cent of premises in Grey are ready to connect. Around 50 per cent of them have done so, and it is heading into the high sixties in those communities that have had the NBN for almost two years and are approaching the transition dates. This is a very good outcome. I expect a final bit of a splurge. Satellite take-up is a little bit slower, but we are getting very few complaints about the satellite system in my office now. Generally, the reason people haven't changed is because they have some kind of service which they think is okay, but I suggest that they will be on the satellite before long. It's worthwhile reflecting that the system is expected now to be built for $51 billion and will be four years earlier than that proposed by our opponents. In 2007, when we came to government and Malcolm Turnbull became the communications minister, he picked up a model which he wasn't keen on. He said we wouldn't have built it as a government—we would have allowed the telcos to build in the cities and the government would have fixed up the gaps. But, of course, when Labor came to power they immediately confiscated $2 billion from the future telecommunications fund and redirected it into the NBN, which cost $7 billion to get past three per cent of premises in Australia—just 821 in Grey. (Time expired) Media 18 13:51 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs We in Labor will fight for freedom of the press and the public's right to know. They are fundamental pillars of our democracy. This should not be controversial. It should not even be up for debate, but the sad truth is that, when it comes to freedom of the press and the public's right to know, the Morrison government just doesn't get it. We had the embarrassment of a Prime Minister whose response to the outrage of Federal Police raids on journalists and media organisations was to declare at a press conference that it didn't trouble him. It didn't trouble him because the journalists were being raided for embarrassing his government. This government refuses to answer questions from journalists or members of the public, refuses to answer questions in parliament, ignores its legal obligations under freedom-of-information laws and uses the criminal law to intimidate people who embarrass it, including journalists and whistleblowers. If this government is serious about freedom of the press, it needs to announce today that the three journalists now under investigation for embarrassing this government will not be prosecuted simply for doing their jobs. Journalists should not be prosecuted simply for telling the Australian people about matters that are unequivocally in the public interest. Every day this intimidation continues, damage is being done to the public's right to know because every day this continues freedom of the press in our country is being undermined. The Morrison government must stop making excuses and introduce legislation to better protect journalists and whistleblowers. Water Safety 18 13:53 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson The surf lifesaving season has just begun. I did my first patrol a couple of weeks ago, and it's this time of year that people are really reminded, when heading out to the beach, to swim between the flags and to always listen for instructions from lifeguards on patrol. Today I'd like to share with you one example of how important this message is and to praise an outstanding young person from my community on the Central Coast who was recently recognised for the Rescue of the Month by Surf Life Saving New South Wales and nominated for a Pride of Australia Award. Max Taylor is a 12-year-old school student who was a nipper at Wamberal Surf Life Saving Club and has grown up riding the waves at his local beach. In March this year, as Max waited for his dad, James Taylor, to pick him up from a surf at Wamberal Beach after school he heard some distressed cries for help coming from where he'd just been surfing. With the lifeguards having finished their patrol for the day, the then 11-year-old boy raced back to the surf and navigated through the strong current to a swimmer struggling in the rip. Max was able to use the skills he'd learnt as a nipper and as a member of the Wamberal Express Boardriders club to negotiate his way to the first-time swimmer, who, by the time Max reached him, was 150 metres from the beach and pretty badly fatigued. Max safely brought the swimmer back to shore to well-deserved applause from onlookers. I'd like to congratulate young Max on his bravery and for his maturity in the way he handled this challenging situation. We're enormously proud of you. Western Australia: Economy 19 13:54 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Last week two important pieces of information for Western Australia were revealed. The first was that WA's unemployment rate remains materially higher than the rest of the nation, at 5.7 per cent. The second, as revealed in the West Australian, was that more than $1 billion of shovel ready infrastructure projects are being held up by this federal government. Labor has been crying out for the government to bring forward infrastructure spending for months. To be frank, with the way this government is going, we would have made more progress picking up a shovel and starting the work ourselves. Under this Liberal federal government, funding and resources to the Department of the Environment have been slashed, resulting in hold-ups and backlogs for approvals. The government's funding cuts are now holding up infrastructure projects across the nation and especially in WA. The government's much feted 'infrastructure pipeline' is officially blocked. This means that there are more than 6,000 jobs currently on ice in WA, holding back economic growth, because of the federal government's inaction. Economic growth is the slowest it's been since the global financial crisis, wages are stagnant and almost two million Australians are looking for work or more work. This government needs a genuine plan to get the economy moving again. We're calling on the government to get on with the job, not only to bring forward infrastructure spending but also to properly resource approval processes so that existing projects can get a move on. It's about time the federal government took its foot off the Western Australian economic throat. Liberal Party of Australia 19 13:56 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I rise to commend my beloved Liberal Party on its 75th anniversary. I've been in the Liberal Party, now the LNP, in Queensland for 16 years, and I am proud of it and its members every single day. I joined the party because I was inspired by John Howard's passion for our party to deliver practical outcomes for families and individuals, for ensuring safety and security and for a fair go. Our party will always be vibrant when the individuals that compose it and the thousands of hardworking everyday Australians share a passion for influencing Australia through a mix of Liberal policies that embrace more choices for the individual and a conservative protection of the traditions that make Australia great. The Liberal Party has always represented a broader cross-section of the Australian public than any other political grouping. Labor would seek to pigeonhole us for political purposes. But, in truth, we are for the upward movement of all ambitious Australians, regardless of race, religion, sex or income. The party's success is testament to this fact, and our continued embrace of this broad cross-section of Australians is the secret to our future success. To the men and women of the Liberal Party: thank you for your commitment every day to ensure our party can continue to better the lives of Australians. It is the privilege of my life to fight by your side in this great endeavour. From Menzies' forgotten people to Howard's battlers and Morrison's quiet Australians to them I say: you will always have a champion in the Liberal Party of Australia. Government Advertising 19 13:57 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam How good is it to have an ad man running the country? Normally, a business goes to an advertising company if they've got a product to sell, but not this mob—five years in government, three Prime Ministers, but not much in the way of runs on the board. Wages are down, business investment is down and retail sales are down. In fact, everything is down except the taxpayer-funded ad spend. Today we learnt that, in his first year as Prime Minister, they've racked up $175 million in government advertising—and there is some astounding stuff here. The Treasurer, never shy of self-promotion, has spent $18 million on his tax cut advertising. But the two standouts are the energy minister and the infrastructure minister—$45 million between them. You can just imagine the conversation between the energy minister and his ad men: 'I want to run an advertising campaign.' 'What's your energy policy?' 'Oh, well, we've had 10 different policies but we haven't got one right now.' 'No, worries.' 'Let's talk about powering forward.' 'Great,' say the ad men—$27 million. Our infrastructure minister makes the ABC's Utopia look like a documentary. Our roads are stuffed but $16 million is spent on advertising a program that doesn't start for another five years. Employment 20 13:59 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt There are many important statistics that are released on our economy, but I think it's thoroughly defensible to say that unemployment is far and away, in my view, the most important. Last Thursday we had the monthly release of the ABS statistics, which showed the 36th consecutive month of jobs growth in the Australia economy. The government is to be thoroughly commended for that performance. In fact, in my own state— The SPEAKER 00APG It being 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Media 20 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister say yesterday that decisions about prosecuting journalists should not be made by politicians when the Attorney-General has given himself the final say on whether journalists are prosecuted? Why can't the Prime Minister give straight answers to simple questions? 14:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question. If he'd paid attention to the entire response I gave yesterday, he would have understood that the point about the prosecution of journalists is not that the A-G is required to give consent but that the ALP is asking us to rule out consent even before any advice is received from any of the relevant agencies, which would be unprecedented and most likely unlawful. There is an established process for the investigative authorities to look at these matters and hand that over to prosecution authorities, and then there is the process for the Attorney-General. What the Leader of the Opposition wants to do is throw that all the way. He wants to make the decision, if he were Prime Minister, about who gets prosecuted or who doesn't before those agencies have even considered the matter. What I said yesterday is exactly what I mean, and that is that no-one should be prosecuted on the basis of what occupation they hold. The only basis upon which they should be prosecuted is if they have broken the law. I'll ask the Attorney-General to add to the answer. 14:01 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce With respect to the question as to what would be the difference between a prosecution on the whim of a politician and a prosecution under, in this case, the Smethurst manner, section 79 of the Crimes Act actually embeds the requirement to come to the Attorney-General for consent. What might a prosecution at the whim of a politician look like? It might look like this; this might be the worst case scenario: an opposition leader who said yesterday that the government should shut down a prosecution, breaching the fundamental convention that you do not, as a government, tell the AFP to drop an investigation. If that is not remarkable enough, what is remarkable is who the politician who actually called for the investigation in the first place was. The shadow Attorney-General was the politician. A letter to the Prime Minister on 29 April 2019 said: 'I write with extreme concern. I am sure I do not need to emphasise with you the gravity of such a security breach. It is therefore— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney is warned. Mr PORTER 208884 incumbent on you to establish an investigation. I am deeply concerned that this national security leak is potentially the result of political tensions.' He sees a political advantage and so pressures the AFP to start an investigation. He sees a political advantage in having it shutdown. They called for the same investigation that they're asking to be shut down, in breach of the fundamental convention that the AFP remains independent. They want to know what a prosecution at the whim of a politician might look like; it'd look like what would happen if you ever got into government. The SPEAKER 00APG I just remind the Attorney-General that he refer to members by their correct titles. An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG He's accusing me of all sorts of things—unintentionally, I'm sure! Budget 20 14:04 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the stability and certainty of a strong budget guarantees the delivery of essential services Australians rely on, and is the Prime Minister aware of how alternative approaches to the budget would impact these services? 14:04 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook As we said at the last election and have said for many years, the ability to guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on, be it in hospitals, schools, aged-care packages, home care packages or disability support—all of these depend on a strong economy that can underpin a strong budget. A strong economy is one that has produced almost 1.5 million jobs over the last six years. A strong economy is one that has ensured, over the last three years, consecutive monthly increases in employment for 36 months. That is the first time we have ever seen this in the country since February 1978, which is when records began on these measures. It is the fact that we have been able to get Australians off welfare and into work which has been the central component of strengthening the budget, which has seen the budget coming back into surplus this year. When you can actually manage an economy and when you can manage your discipline on spending and get it under control and bring the budget back to surplus then you can also at the same time look Australians directly in the eye, as we did at the last election, and say, 'We can guarantee the essential services you rely on, because we know how to manage the economy and we know how to manage a budget.' That means we have guaranteed record funding to every school on the basis of student need, some $310 billion in our schools over the next decade— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney has been warned. That is her final warning. Mr MORRISON E3L not only record spending on our schools; fully guaranteed funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, through a $140 billion investment in the capabilities of Australians; record health and hospitals funding, with an extra $31 billion through the National Healthcare Agreement; supporting the increase in bulk-billing in Medicare to the record rate of 86.2 per cent last financial year, meaning some 86 out of every 100 visits to the GP are free, fully funded by a government that knows how to manage a budget, exercise discipline on its finances and support a stronger economy; increasing investment to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, with some 2,200 new or amended items listed on the PBS, which represents an average of around 30 listings per month, at an overall cost of $10.6 billion; $7 billion extra in childcare subsidies, paid to 1.1 million families; and $1 billion extra every year on supporting aged care, delivering the essential services Australians rely on, because our government knows how to support a stronger economy and knows how to manage and deliver a strong budget position that gives Australians resilience and assurance in the areas of uncertainty that they face in the years ahead. The SPEAKER 00APG I will again remind members—just the member for Hunter—that, if a minister or the Prime Minister is still on their feet, answering a question, I don't want members walking to the dispatch box. You're not going to miss out. I allocate the call; it's all going to be okay. Drought 21 14:07 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter My question is also to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the statement made by the member for New England yesterday. He said: 'If they want to work in a more bipartisan way, I'm not going to knock that.' Prime Minister, why won't you listen to the member and, more importantly, to farmers and rural communities and convene a cross-party drought cabinet to adequately respond to the growing drought crisis? 14:08 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The members of the Labor Party who sit on this front bench here can't even operate functionally in a shadow cabinet, let alone actually participate in an actual cabinet, at the end of the day. We learnt today, with Labor historian Troy Bramston writing in The Australian, that a Labor frontbencher, a member of the shadow cabinet which the Leader of the Opposition leads—I don't know who it was, but I'm happy to take suggestions; I am sure they will be made to journalists later. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Albanese R36 Relevance: it is a serious question about the drought. He should respond in a serious manner. The SPEAKER 00APG So far the Prime Minister is relating his material to the question about a cross-party group. I am listening to the Prime Minister. Mr MORRISON E3L The quote read, from a Labor frontbencher, referring to the Leader of the Opposition: For a guy who wanted to be leader so bad, and couldn't wait to announce he was running for it less than 24 hours after the election, he does not know what to do with the job. That is what the shadow frontbencher, whoever they are, says about this Leader of the Opposition, and this Leader of the Opposition thinks he should be sitting in a cabinet, making decisions, on this side of the place. To address the issue of drought: this is a very serious issue and one in which the government convened a national drought summit and sought to work, in a bipartisan fashion, at that time, with the opposition, and I recall the observations being made outside that drought summit by the very member who asked this question. Even before he got inside the room, he was already attacking the Future Drought Fund. Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hunter has asked his question. Mr MORRISON E3L If we're going to work on a bipartisan basis on this issue—we have not seen the policies that the opposition might be suggesting, but equally I would say this: the response that we're providing is comprehensive. It is dealing firstly with the assistance directly to farm households, whether they be farmers or graziers or others. It is investing in the district communities that need the support to work through the drought and to provide for their resilience for the future. It is a serious issue, and Labor have referred to the suggestion of a 'war cabinet'. I would remind them of the history: that, even when this nation was actually in war, there was not a war cabinet of the nature suggested by the member who asked this question. I think it's important that we will continue to consult widely, as we do—listening, most importantly, to farmers and the rural districts, who we will continue to work with. The only politics being played on the drought is by those who sit opposite. Budget 22 14:11 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's stable and certain budget guarantees the delivery of essential services for the development of regional Australia, particularly in my electorate of Page, and is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:12 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Page for his question. Stable, certain budget delivery—that's what we're about, including the $841 million that's being spent on the Building Better Regions Fund. We're injecting $6 million for the stage 2 upgrade of facilities at Crozier and Oakes ovals in Lismore. This is going to help create the Lismore Regional Sports Hub, which will attract events such as professional football and cricket to the area. That could well have the potential to attract more than 20,000 visitors to Lismore, making sure that the New South Wales North Coast has the highly qualified and professional sports events that it deserves, so that locals can see the very best elite sportspeople in action in male and female events. It could attract all sorts of events. These have the potential to bring $2.3 million of economic activity to the small businesses in Lismore. Construction is well underway. It is creating jobs for 21 people in the construction phase. Certainly this has helped. It leads into the fact that we've had 36 unbroken months of jobs growth in this nation. That happens because of the Liberal-Nationals government creating opportunities and making sure that we've got the economic environment right for small businesses to back themselves. It's not government that creates jobs—unless of course it's in the public service, and that's what happens when those opposite put too much emphasis on bureaucracy. We help businesses back themselves and invest in their futures and make sure that they hire people. That's what we do. That's what we will continue to do. We've had three years of unbroken jobs growth. Barry Cooper, from the Lismore and far North Coast junior cricket club, said that the upgrade, at Crozier and Oakes ovals, 'will see more people getting involved in all sports. It will allow our area to attract bigger championships. This will see motels booked out and people spending more money at our local businesses. This will also help more youth get involved in sport.' There are 830 of these terrific grassroots projects being delivered through the Building Better Regions Fund. It's designed to create jobs, drive economic activity and improve infrastructure, right across rural, regional, country and coastal Australia, and certainly remote areas too. Of course, I've been asked about the alternative. Under Labor, when Labor had delivery of the Regional Jobs and Infrastructure Packages, investing in regional areas, they also looked at electorates such as Watson and McMahon, which we know are not regional. This is why the national— Ms Catherine King 00AMR You funded a project in Abbotsford! Mr McCORMACK 219646 I hear the member for Ballarat. No wonder you're singing out—the National Audit Office came out and condemned what you did, member for Ballarat, when you were in charge of the program. The regions missed out— (Time expired) Drought 23 14:15 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson My question is to the Prime Minister. The Coordinator-General for Drought, Major General Stephen Day, delivered his final report in April to the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister insist on keeping this important report a secret, despite the ongoing drought crisis in Australia? 14:15 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question. The coordinator-general, in undertaking what he did for us on drought, has been informing all of the responses the government has been making to that drought. The government is at the moment finalising its full response to that report. When we provide that response, we will be releasing that report, and that is in the not-too-distant future. What you will see when you see that report is the extensive implementation of the issues that have been raised by the coordinator-general in informing the government's drought response. That included the coordinator-general bringing together early on in the piece the National Drought Summit. That National Drought Summit brought people together from all across the country—state and territory premiers and chief ministers, those from the agricultural sector, scientists, government agencies and others involved—and informed the government's response. It was also those involved in the trucking and freight industry. Following that drought summit, one of the most important things we did very early on was upgrade and update the National Drought Agreement between the Commonwealth and the states and the territories. What that set out was ensuring that the management of animal welfare is addressed by the states and territories but the management of the welfare of farmers and rural communities is managed by the Commonwealth. That's why we have moved to ensure that the farm household allowance now is the most generous it has been in its entire history, and that includes ensuring that, just over four years, a farming family would receive $125,000 over the course of being on the farm household allowance. In addition to that, we have relaxed the eligibility requirements so they would get that four out of every 10 years. What we inherited from our predecessors was three forever. We've upgraded that to four for every 10. We've invested in district communities all around the country that are affected by drought, with $1 million going into each of those shire councils to ensure that their economies are being supported and we are keeping people in work—to ensure we can support those communities and their economy and their wellbeing. Of course, longer term, we've been investing in the resilience of Australia to future droughts with our investment in water infrastructure projects. There is $1½ billion in grant funding going into 21 projects right now. On top of that, there is $3½ billion—over and above that—investing in water infrastructure to provide further resilience around the country. That is also supported with research and science, amongst the many things that are supported by the draw-down of the Future Drought Fund. We have a comprehensive response to drought. That comprehensive response, which is not set and forget, we will continue to add to. It continues to be informed by the excellent work of the coordinator-general, and I look forward to releasing that report, along with the government's full response. Fuel 23 14:18 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Prime Minister. As of July this year, Australia had just 27 days supply of automotive fuel physically in the country. This leaves us incredibly vulnerable. When will Australia increase our stocks to the recommended 90-day supply of automotive fuel physically held in the country? 14:19 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Although Australia hasn't had a major fuel disruption for over 40 years, we are absolutely committed to continually enhancing the strength of our fuel security. With that in mind, we're working very closely with the International Energy Agency to modernise the oil stockholding methodology, which will take into account Australia's unique geographic circumstances and unique supply chain. Based on that, during 2019 we have held an average of 85 days of stocks across the various fuel stocks. We have also, importantly, commenced negotiations with the United States for a strategic petroleum reserve. That will not only boost our oil stockholdings but also, importantly, put us in a position where we can work with other like-minded countries to deal with any disruption that might occur in the future. We are being very deliberate with this important topic; I am glad that the member for Mayo raised it. The final liquid fuel security report is due later this year. The review will help to inform future decisions on this important topic, and it will include any decisions around holding additional stocks offshore. By contrast, those opposite took to the election a policy which would have cost Australians $10 billion or more, or worse, at the fuel pump. There is one other certain way to improve our fuel security, and that is to make the most of Australia's ample oil and gas reserves. The Northern Territory Labor government have shown great leadership on this, with the work they are doing on the Beetaloo Basin. We have contributed $8.4 million to getting that very prospective basin for oil and gas into operation. I call on all states, including the Victorian state Labor government, to remove blanket bans and moratoria on gas and oil exploration. I also acknowledge the great potential for oil and gas developments in the great state of South Australia. It's time to get on, and deliver on Australia's oil and gas potential in the coming years. Economy 24 14:22 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer explain to the House how the Morrison government's stable and certain economic leadership and financial management is equipping Australia to deal with the challenges that we face as a nation, and is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches? 14:22 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Canning for his question. He is a person who has served Australia with distinction in uniform, and he is concerned with and focused on ensuring that Australia retains its strong economic management. When we came to government, unemployment was rising, investment was falling, $240 billion of deficits had been accumulated and the budget was a mess. Even when they enjoyed iron ore prices that had risen to $180 a tonne—more than double what we see today—the Labor Party still couldn't deliver a surplus. The last time the Labor Party delivered a surplus was in 1989, when the Berlin Wall was still standing, Janet Jackson was top of the pops and the member for Rankin was in primary school. So you can imagine my surprise when I picked up that historical fiction—his book, Glory Daze. This is what the member for Rankin wrote: 'One of the least heralded but most important acts of the Rudd and Gillard governments was the budget repair we achieved.' I have a message for the member for Rankin: it was the least heralded because it didn't happen! Since we have come to government, the economy has continued to grow, our AAA credit rating has been maintained, the current account is in surplus for the first time since 1975 and we have the first balanced budget in 11 years. The reason why we have a balanced budget is we have a record number of Australians in jobs. We have had jobs growth every single month for three years. Employment growth is now more than three times what we inherited from Labor and more than twice the OECD average. The reality is: when Labor was in government, unemployment was 5.7 per cent. Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gorton is warned. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Today it is 5.2 per cent. A strong budget gives us resilience in the face of external shocks. A strong budget allows us to spend more in the areas that need it most, like hospitals and schools and drought support, defence and mental health. Only the coalition can be trusted to lower taxes, create more jobs and deliver a strong budget. Drought 24 14:25 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter My question is again to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that his government has kicked 600 farming families off the Farm Household Allowance as the drought worsens and will kick another 500 families off the payment by Christmas? 14:25 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I refer the member to the statement we made last week—and I will invite the minister to add to my remarks, if he would like to—that we are adding an additional supplement for those coming off the Farm Household Allowance after their four years, a payment of $13,000 per family. They will receive $13,000, once the four years has concluded. What our government will continue to do, as we have done all the way through this drought is—as the minister rightly calls it—as the drought steps up another level, we step up another level. We will continue to monitor this issue very closely. On each occasion, we have responded to the advice we have received on the Farm Household Allowance. Remember, it started at three years forever; that was the policy setting we inherited. The Farm Household Allowance was for three years and that's all you got, forever. We increased that to four years and then we increased it to four years in every 10. Now, at the end of those four years, we have said that we will add in a further supplementary payment of $13,000, like we did last year when we added an additional $12,000 to the payment people were already receiving as part of the step-up of our drought response. So, on each and every occasion, as the drought has continued, we have continued to step up our response as the step-up has required. And that is why I have said—and those opposite have lampooned the idea—it is the first call and it is the biggest call on the budget. As we consider the issues, whether we go to the MYEFO period or next year's budget, the first call, the first thing I am going to ensure is addressed is meeting the needs of our drought support programs. That is why those farmers are getting an extra $13,000. That's why we're prepared to provide that support—to ensure that they continue to receive the financial assistance that they are seeking. Health Care 25 14:27 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Minister for Health: Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government's stable and certain economic management allows for record investment in public hospitals and for important medical programs, such as the Zero Childhood Cancer initiative, and is the Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:28 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Goldstein. He's been a strong supporter of paediatric cancer initiatives, such as the Robert Connor Dawes Foundation and, throughout his career, he's also recognised that, in order to fund hospitals and medicines and medical research, it's critical to have a strong economy. The equation works that if there are strong investment circumstances—appropriate taxation circumstances, such as franking credits—investments will be made. That helps create employment, 36 months of continuous employment, helps improve the budget circumstance, and, in turn, allows for investment in hospitals and medical research. In particular, in our hospitals, what we have seen is a pathway to a doubling of Commonwealth investment in hospital expenditure in Australia. We are going from $13 billion in the year before we came to office to, over this term of government, $23, $24, $25 and $26 billion per annum, a doubling of annual hospital investment. But it goes further than that. Over the course of the next five-year period, under the National Health Reform Agreement, we will see an increase of $31 billion from $100 billion to $131 billion and all this will result in extra services, extra supports, extra treatments, which will make a profound difference in essential services to Australian families. One of the other areas that we are able to invest in is medical research. Within that medical research area there is no more important program than the Zero Childhood Cancer initiative. This is absolutely critical. The $25 million into a program which did not previously exist allows young children who have a less than 30 per cent survival rate for cancer to have their DNA sequenced. To date, over 250 children have had their DNA sequenced. Most significantly, of those 250 children, almost three-quarters have had a discovery made which allows for a novel treatment, a treatment which would otherwise never have been contemplated—because of a genetic mutation or other discovery. Of that first group of children to be given that novel treatment, 60 per cent have had a partial or complete remission. One of those children is, Kaylee, a 14-year-old girl from New South Wales. She has a neuroblastoma that had been given all of the conventional treatments, and there was very little hope given at that point. She had her DNA sequenced under the Zero Childhood Cancer initiative and, as a consequence, she was given a novel treatment. I'm delighted to inform the House that, after 17 days, she was in remission and back at school. Infrastructure 25 14:31 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm evidence at Senate estimates last night that his government spent $190,000 on a plan to develop empathy for the Inland Rail project? Why is the Prime Minister spending taxpayer money on funded empathy while drought stricken farm families are being thrown off the farm household allowance? 14:31 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It is important to have empathy for rural communities. We are investing $9.3 billion in the Inland Rail. It is a 1,700 kilometre corridor of commerce between Melbourne and Brisbane. The report that the CSIRO did last year predicated the building of this on a $10 per tonne saving. It is now going to be up to $94 per tonne—indeed, a $76 per tonne average. But it is going to impact on farmers' properties—and we understand that. Indeed, even in my electorate, in Illabo and Stockinbingal, there are farmers for whom the Inland Rail is going to intersect their properties and intersect their lives. Obviously, we need to get out there and inform those people about their options, as we construct this Inland Rail project, which is already creating thousands of jobs and is going to create thousands of opportunities for those farmers to get their product to port and to make sure that we take advantage of the free trade agreements that this government has been able to broker with South Korea, Japan and China—and we are of course working on one with Indonesia and one with India. We want to get more farmers' product to plate. We want to get more farmers' product to port within 24 hours, and that is what the Inland Rail will do. But we have been asked about money that is being spent on advertising campaigns. Ms Catherine King interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I am being— Ms Catherine King interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 Well, I'll just keep going. The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Ballarat— Ms Catherine King interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I will when the Speaker asks me to. You are not the Speaker yet. You can apply next time, I suppose, when the job becomes available. The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat for a second. I will call the member for Ballarat if she is indicating that she wants to raise a point of order on something other than relevance. I'm not calling the member for Ballarat. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. Ms Catherine King interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I am not going to receive a lecture from the member for Ballarat, when she hasn't received the call, in disagreeing with my ruling. The member for Ballarat is warned. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. Mr McCORMACK 219646 When it comes to government advertising, this is important so that we can get out there and inform people who are going to be impacted by the Inland Rail about their options. It is nation-building infrastructure. We can go down the Labor way: we can be in a banana republic and build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything. That was their philosophy. When it comes to government advertising, those opposite had six years in government and, in that time, they were the champions of wasting money—and the book that I am holding proves it. Remember this little book? The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister knows the rules on props. Mr McCORMACK 219646 Sure. It was absolutely red, for you red-raggers over there, you bunch of socialists. But there's $69.5 million wasted on the carbon tax. How'd the carbon tax work for you? Then there was Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister, spending $53,000 on running a blog that no-one even commented on. There was carbon tax advertising for toddlers, $150,000. The list goes on: Labor spin-doctors wasting money— (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Ballarat, seeking to table a document? Ms Catherine King 00AMR I was actually going to seek leave for him to table that document, but I'm also seeking leave to table a document that shows the government spent $190,000 on a social licence strategy for inland rail—not advertising—to develop empathy. The SPEAKER 00APG You're seeking to table Hansard? Is that what you're seeking to table? Ms Catherine King 00AMR Senate estimates, yes. The SPEAKER 00APG As I've said before, that's ridiculous. Mr Burke DYW On a separate point of order: there were two issues that were referred to with respect to the tabling. The other was the document that was part of a stunt, where it looks like even his own stunt had the words redacted. I can't say he was quoting from it, because there were no words, but we'd seek for it to be tabled. The SPEAKER 00APG There has been no request for it to be tabled. Ms Catherine King 00AMR I did. The SPEAKER 00APG No, she said she was going to; she didn't. You'd better get it right next time. Schools 26 14:37 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin My question is to the Minister for Education. Would the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's stable and certain budget management has allowed for record investments in schools right throughout Australia, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:37 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank the member for Curtin for her question. She has 50 schools in her electorate and she's passionate about all of them. I think all members of the House would be interested in this. The SPEAKER 00APG I'm finding it difficult to hear to hear the minister when he's not talking towards the microphone. I appreciate what he's trying do, but I can't hear a word he's saying. Mr TEHAN 210911 Sorry, Mr Speaker; I like looking people in the eye when I'm speaking to them. The SPEAKER 00APG I don't mind an interchange, but can I just tell the minister: he might like looking people in the eye, and I know he's very respectful, but people watching on television can't hear a word he's saying. Mr TEHAN 210911 I will continue, because I was about to make a very important point. The member for Curtin's— Ms Plibersek 83M —$100 million from her schools The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney will leave under 94(a). The member for Sydney then left the chamber. Mr TEHAN 210911 I just waited for it. The member for Curtin's oldest son— Mr Albanese interjecting— Mr TEHAN 210911 The Leader of the Opposition might want to just be a little bit quiet here. No, you might, seriously. Joke, laugh and play the clown, but I tell you what: if you keep playing the clown, you won't be in that seat in 12 months time. Zip it; I'm trying to make an important point. Honourable members interjecting— Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 Why are they all so angry? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hunter is warned. The level of interjections on my left is far too high. I'll continue to eject people. The minister has been asked a question. He needs to be relevant to that question. Mr TEHAN 210911 The point I wanted to make is the eldest son of the member for Curtin is doing his year 12 exams. And what I wanted to say on behalf of the whole House to all those students who are undertaking their year 12 exams is we wish them all the very best for what is a very important time of their life. I apologise to everyone who's listening that I couldn't get that out because of the rambling and unruly behaviour of those opposite. It is a great shame. Can I say that I think I know why they're rambling and they have no idea. It's because it's five months after the election and they do not have an education policy. What is your education policy? It is under review. It's been five months and they do not have an education policy. Opposition members interjecting — The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. Members on my left will cease interjecting. I will now proceed to eject people. The member for Gorton has already been warned. He will leave under 94(a). It's all very straightforward: people who get warned and keep interjecting—if they have difficulty remembering it, perhaps they could make a note. The minister has another 20 seconds. Mr TEHAN 210911 On this side we've got record funding for preschool, record funding for child care, record funding for primary school, record funding for secondary school, record funding for higher ed, and you don't even have an education policy. Cairns Southern Access Corridor 27 14:41 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Cairns Southern Access Corridor will not receive a cent of the promised $180 million during this term of parliament? 14:42 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question, and I'll invite the minister for infrastructure to add to my answer. The issue that is being raised is the follow-through on investments made by the government. I note that, when the Leader of the Opposition was the infrastructure minister, of the $6.2 billion that Labor allocated to urban transport in the 2013 budget, just $1.9 billion, or 30 per cent of that, was in the forward estimates. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker. You won't be surprised that it's on relevance. It's about the Cairns Southern Access Corridor. Will it receive a dollar this term of parliament? The SPEAKER 00APG It was a very specific question. The Prime Minister's entitled to briefly give some context to it. It wasn't a question that asked about alternative policies that would enable a long period of time, but, as I've said before, both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition do get some tolerance to compare and contrast. I think the Prime Minister's either moving to that point or he'd indicated he was going to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to answer the question. The Deputy Prime Minister. 14:43 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The member for Leichhardt knows full well how important these projects are. He knows how important projects are to make sure that we get the freight line supply chains right, make sure that we enhance that productivity and make sure that we increase road safety options. And, if Mark Bailey, the Queensland minister, can get his people organised, we will certainly look at any road project—indeed, any infrastructure project—in Queensland. If any other state wants to come to the table and work cooperatively with the Commonwealth, we've got $100 billion of infrastructure that we're rolling out across this nation. I know. I've actually been to Cairns. I've actually— Opposition members interjecting — Mr McCORMACK 219646 Thank you for the cheer. The member for Leichhardt was returned because he talked about our $100 billion infrastructure plan. Cheer that, too, because it's well worth cheering about! I know the people of Cairns, the people of North Queensland—the people of that fine state of Queensland—indeed, people of every state and every territory in and across Australia, were cheering us home on 18 May because they knew that we were building the infrastructure that Australians need, want, expect and, most of all, deserve. Whether it's Roads of Strategic Importance, whether it's the beef roads, whether it's the northern roads, they are all making sure that we get the infrastructure that Australians want. Whether it's getting the Cairns Southern Access Corridor, whether it's getting the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, whether it's getting the Rockhampton Ring Road—all those projects are of critical importance. The Outback Way starts in Winton, Queensland, and goes through to Laverton in Western Australia. They're all important projects. We're getting on and we're building them. What those opposite who go to the dispatch box and ask those questions should do after question time is ring up their Labor state ministers and say, 'Look, if there are projects that are in my electorate, and indeed other electorates, get on board with the Commonwealth and help build them.' Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Moreton is warned! Mr McCORMACK 219646 Mark Bailey has worked with us in good faith, but there are a lot of projects. Particularly when it comes to Queensland, we'd like to build dams, but unfortunately Rookwood is being held up by the Queensland state Labor government. That's why there was a huge protest the other day in the seat of Capricornia. This is of critical importance to the seat of Flynn— Mr Burke DYW We built dams! Mr McCORMACK 219646 'We built dams,' the member for Watson says. What a joke! (Time expired) Mr Keogh interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Burt is warned, and I'm pretty sure that the member for Scullin should be as well, but I couldn't quite see. Environment 28 14:46 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister outline to the House how the importance of the Morrison government's stable and certain economic management is ensuring the protection of our environment? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies? 14:46 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer Can I thank the member for Wentworth for his question and for his ongoing interest and engagement in environmental policies. The Morrison government is providing sensible, stable government with a certain approach when it comes to managing the environment with a plan that all Australians will endorse and did endorse at the last election, and the sort of funding you only get from a well-managed budget. I want to outline some of the key policies—I'm already ready to give the Labor Party ideas. We have a $100 million Environment Restoration Fund to support major environmental projects across the country— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Could the minister pause. The level of interjections is becoming ridiculously high. There are conversations going on everywhere. I'm not going to get upset about it; I'm just going to act on it. For those interjecting, I'm going to remind you of two things. One is for me to make use of standing order 94(a). You'll see in the Practice and the standing orders that that can happen at any time without a warning. The only other option I have, if I feel that is not getting members' attention, frankly, is to name someone. The minister has the call. Ms LEY 00AMN Our key policies include a $100 million Environment Restoration Fund to support major environmental projects complemented by our community's environment program, available to members opposite as well as this side of the House, in individual electorates for individual groups and organisations. We have put the work into developing new long-term strategies for Antarctica and threatened species and marine park management. It continues to be world leading. We have a $167 million Recycling Investment Fund, increasing recycling rates, tackling plastic and halving food waste. The leadership shown by the Prime Minister on ending exports of paper, glass, tyres and plastic is providing certainty to businesses who want to be proactive in this space. As the assistant minister and I conduct roundtables around the country, we're finding the private sector ready and willing to step up and participate in this major microeconomic reform because they see economic opportunity in the circular economy. Why? Well, there are more than nine new Australian jobs created for every 10,000 tonnes of waste that is recycled correctly. We are laying the groundwork to continue our 36 months of continuous job growth well into the future. Recycling and remanufacturing brings jobs wherever you see it. This certainty and engagement does give business the confidence to continue to invest and grow in this vital circular economy. It is in total contrast to the lack of policy from those opposite, because, unfortunately, since the election what we have seen from Labor is nothing close to an environment policy—just empty press releases and the panicked parliamentary stunt that we saw in this place. We don't know Labor's policy on waste and recycling, we don't know Labor's stance on threatened species management, we don't know Labor's Antarctic position, we don't know Labor's plan for the reef, and we don't know Labor's plan for Indigenous protected areas, land care, marine park management or soils. But every Australian does know what we are doing in this incredibly important space. Australians care deeply about the environment. They want to see practical policies and stable leadership, rather than thought bubbles that appear one minute and disappear the next. Confidence, building real change and doing things better is a Liberal government. Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility 29 14:50 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that only $50 million of the $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility has been spent since it was announced in 2015? 14:50 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'd be pleased to provide the member with a full update on the works of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. I'll arrange for that to be provided to him directly. Child Safety 29 14:51 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Boothby will pause. The member for Burt has a short memory. He will leave under 94(a). The member for Burt then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG Just so that things are procedurally in order, as you'd expect, I'm issuing a general warning, which means I can name someone now if they interject. It will be my choice. I call the member for Boothby. Ms FLINT 245550 My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister outline to the House the importance of the Morrison government's stable and certain approach to ensuring the safety of children? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies? 14:51 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I want to thank the member for Boothby for her question and, most importantly, for the work that she does in her electorate. She is very conscious, as all of us are, of ensuring that we protect children in our local communities. The government has made a very significant investment into the public policy space, into the police and into the work that's done by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and other agencies, to keep kids safe in this country, and, in particular, to try to keep them safe online. We have been able to do that, to invest $70 million in the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, because we have managed the budget well. This is an investment that, when the Labor Party was in power, they weren't able to make because they ran out of money. They stopped listing medicines and they took money out of our policing, law enforcement and intelligence agencies. That's what happened when they mismanaged the budget. We've been able to manage the budget effectively over the last number of years. We have done that through a number of tough decisions, but we now pay a dividend back to the Australian community, and there is no more important priority than protecting Australian children. In 2014, we strengthened the Migration Act. It was opposed by the Labor Party, to their shame. We have sought to make sure that we strengthen our laws so that we can cancel the visas of noncitizens—now 420 of them—for child exploitation and child sex offences. And we're proposing to strengthen the law further, which is opposed again by Labor. That's the reality. I point this out because there is a big difference between the Labor Party and the coalition when it comes to these very important issues. Dr Freelander interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Macarthur will leave under 94(a). The member for Macarthur then left the chamber. Mr DUTTON 00AKI We have also introduced into the parliament the Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, which goes to providing more strength and support to policing agencies to make sure that we can keep Australian children safe. We want to invest more into this area and we are putting more money into the Australian Federal Police and other agencies, but we can do that only if we manage the economy well—if we manage the budget well; if we make sure that we can put this investment into areas of priority for the Australian public. The fact is that when Labor lost control of their budget they lost control of their ability to invest in important areas. The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat—the minister has now indicated that he has concluded his answer. The Leader of the Opposition is seeking the call, on indulgence. 14:54 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—The issue of child sexual exploitation should not be politicised. It should be an issue which all of us, surely, agree on. Surely the minister can give an answer to a dixer without trying to politicise such an issue. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition has had a brief indulgence. Mr Dutton 00AKI Own your own failings! You wonder why you're under pressure! The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 00APG Hang on; I'll call you in a second. Can the member for Moncrieff resume her seat, and the member for Cowan resume her seat. The Leader of the Opposition takes precedence, as do other party leaders and deputies. Mr Albanese R36 I make this point: today is the anniversary of the apology based upon the royal commission. We'll be speaking on it this afternoon, and we shouldn't have that sort of behaviour across the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG No; the Leader of the Opposition, in seeking the call, indicated that he wanted a remark withdrawn. Mr Albanese R36 Yes, he should withdraw the suggestion that somehow these issues are partisan issues. They are not. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The call is going to alternate to the opposition side, as a matter of course. I just say to the Leader of the Opposition: given his position, of course, indulgences are granted. Under the Practice, only directly offensive remarks or unparliamentary remarks are required to be withdrawn. I think I've been fair in letting each side have their say, and I think the best thing to do is call the member for Cowan, who was seeking the call. Roads 30 14:56 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the announced upgrade of the road corridor between Karratha and Tom Price. Mr Morrison interjecting— Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Cowan will just pause. We need the interchange across the table to stop so that we can hear the question, and I want to make sure the member for Cowan's microphone is on—no, don't touch it. Dr Aly 13050 Just trying to be helpful. The SPEAKER 00APG I'll tell you what: if you break the microphone, I'll be helpful and send you the bill, okay? The member for Cowan has the call. Dr ALY 13050 My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the announced upgrade of the road corridor between Karratha and Tom Price. Can the Prime Minister confirm that a child who starts school this year will be in high school before the upgrade is complete? 14:57 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina A child who begins school this year will benefit from the fact that this government backs the resources sector. Under those opposite, had they taken government on 18 May—they didn't back the resources sector and it was writ large. Karratha and Tom Price are reliant on a strong and vibrant resources sector. I was in Western Australia just the other day. Honourable members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 More cheers for our $100 billion 10-year pipeline of investment in infrastructure. When it comes to investing in infrastructure in regional Western Australia, I'm not quite sure why one of the metropolitan Western Australian representatives is suddenly interested in regional areas. Let me tell you: on this side of the House, we're very interested in regional Australia and we're very interested in making sure that we've got investments in the resources sector to make it vibrant, to make it strong and to make it lasting, because we back the resources sector. The member for Hunter has only just cottoned on to the fact that people in his electorate are behind the resources sector, and those opposite should know that resources provide tens upon tens of thousands of jobs, provide many billions of dollars for our balance of payments for our exports and provide the energy needs of this nation. They seemed to forget that prior to 18 May. They seemed to forget it and think that anybody who worked in a mine, who worked in a high-vis vest, somehow should have been demonised. They learnt their lesson on 18 May when the resources sector backed this side, backed the Liberals, backed the Nationals, as they should have. When it comes to roads for mining industries, we're getting on and building those roads. Indeed, I was never so proud as when I was standing at Laverton, where the bitumen road out of Laverton ends, 12 kilometres along the Outback Way, and a fellow who runs a mine there said: 'You know, this is going to benefit our mine. It takes 12 hours to drive from Laverton to my mine, and, because the Liberals and Nationals are getting on and building the road, putting bitumen down at long last—the other side: well, I don't know whether they ever would, but you blokes are doing it, so well done to you—that's going to save nine hours on my trucks, to get from here to there, and that's going to create productivity savings.' He's going to be able to invest further in his mine. That's why we've had 36 months of unbroken jobs growth in this nation, because we back the resources sector, we back infrastructure and we get on with the job— The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister has indicated he has concluded his answer. I call the member for Moncrieff. Budget 31 15:00 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's stable and certain approach to the budget guarantees the delivery of essential services Australians rely on, including through the NDIS, and is the minister aware of any risks associated with alternative approaches? 15:01 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question and her commitment to the 1,044 participants in her electorate. This morning many of us, from both sides of the aisle—in fact 30 of us—all attended the Power of Speech breakfast, including the two paediatricians in the House, the member for Macarthur and the member for Higgins, who both spoke, and spoke beautifully. We had the privilege of listening to six little children share their experiences of growing up profoundly deaf. All six children—and they were gorgeous—Annie, Aretha, Eamon, Gaurvi, Hannah and Zia, have cochlear implants, and they all delivered a wonderful two-minute speech about their lives, their hopes and their dreams. This morning's event, My Hearing Future, is what the NDIS is all about. It's about futures—in this case, supporting children in need, not just with the cochlear implant but with the early intervention supports that we all know make such a huge difference. It's why one of the government's first actions, post election, was to put in place the early childhood early intervention remediation strategy, because of the massive surge of children coming through the scheme. Where 4½ thousand children were waiting longer than 50 days to get their plan, it's now down to 1,600 children. By Christmas it will be zero. These kids' stories are just six of the stories of the 500,000 participants that will come into the scheme over the next five years—a scheme that is fully funded, that is uncapped and that is secure now and into the future. We all know we can only do that with a strong, stable budget. There's no other way to have an uncapped scheme. We must have a strong economy. We must have strong jobs growth. It's why we're thrilled to see what the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have delivered in 36 months of consecutive jobs growth. Because of this budget position, the government has been able to make enormous improvements. A number of months ago we added 800 extra Public Service resources because of the significant work program ahead of us. We've already recruited 300 of them. In terms of backlog in the NDIS, it is now zero, which is extraordinary. In terms of the Disability Reform Council, we've solved interface issues in mental health, in justice and in transport. We've sorted out interface issues with voluntary out-of-home care, and with the interfaces with the health system and of course with discharge. Importantly, we've announced the new CEO of the NDIA, Martin Hoffman, who is an extraordinary executive and an extraordinary individual. He'll continue to work with the government, especially as we move the Participant Service Guarantee to support a very positive participant experience going forward. The bottom line is: the budget position has allowed us to get on with delivering this world-first scheme, and it's something that the entire parliament can be proud of. Cattle Industry 32 15:04 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Prime Minister. Since 2016-17, the government has promised to spend $145 million on improving Australia's cattle supply chains but has only spent $40 million, an underspend of more than $100 million. Why? 15:04 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'm not going to take lectures from a Labor Party who shut down the live cattle trade in a panicked decision after one television program. Under our government, we're working towards a $100 billion agricultural industry by 2030. This afternoon I'm looking forward to sitting down with the National Farmers Federation, and not only to talk about those projects to achieve and realise what can be gained in our agricultural sector. The agricultural sector at the moment, of course, is going through a difficult period because of the drought, and we've seen a more than 10 per cent fall in farm GDP because of that. But what we do have are the plans to continue to build it. What I am so impressed by is the resilience of the Australian agricultural sector—that, despite the setbacks, they continue to invest and realise their future— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW Yes. The question asks about specific expenditure on cattle supply chains and the underspend related to that. That's what it asks about. The SPEAKER 00APG I will call the Prime Minister. Again, I take the point— Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hunter is not helping— Mr Tehan interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG neither is the Minister for Education. The question did ask about some budgeted figures. It also asked about the cattle supply chain. The Prime Minister is certainly being relevant to the policy topic, and I'm also just very conscious he's not quite a minute in. I'm listening to the Prime Minister. Mr MORRISON E3L It gives me the opportunity to again say that the work we're doing to support our agricultural sector—and I will invite the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture here in the House to add to that, and I know that the Deputy Prime Minister would also like to add to it. But let's not forget that the Labor Party, when they had the opportunity to support our cattle industry, shopped them off. They sold them out, and they did so as a result of their addiction to policies of panic and crisis. Our government does not act with a sense of panic or crisis. We act in the stable and certain way which gives people confidence in the future and enables them to invest and plan for the future, and that's what we're doing in the agricultural sector. I invite the minister to add to the answer. 15:07 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa Could I just say this is about respect. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 00APG I am going to hear from the— Mr McCormack interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Deputy Prime Minister, just confining your talking to when you're at the dispatch box and you've got the call might help. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business? Mr Burke DYW The $145 million program, which is listed in the budget as being for cattle supply chains, is an infrastructure project. The minister who has just been called—it's not in his portfolio. It's in the portfolio of the Deputy Prime Minister, who was just complaining that we were taking a point of order over who it went to. But it's his portfolio. The dollar figure, the title of the program there— Mr McCormack 219646 You should have asked me the question then, not 'Farmer Joe over there! The SPEAKER 00APG Well, look— Mr Burke DYW I'm simply saying— The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Mr Neumann interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Blair! Mr McCormack 219646 I come from a cattle farm! The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting! I'll make a couple of points to the opposition. I do thank the Manager of Opposition Business for pointing that out; it might have been handy to have that in the question! Notwithstanding that, whilst it is an infrastructure project, it is an infrastructure project about cattle—I'm not trying to get too technical—so I think that does have an agricultural element to it. I call the minister. Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 This is about respect and about restoring a relationship that was destroyed by a panic in 2011, overnight destroying the live cattle trade. What we are doing is slowly putting an environment around the agricultural industry, particularly the live export industry—$1.8 billion a year it is worth to this country. It is important that we continue to make that investment and make that money available for industry to continue to work through the supply chain, particularly more important now, since the ratification of the Indonesian free trade agreement, a proud moment for our nation to be able to trade with our nearest neighbour—267 million people on our doorstep that we now have the opportunity to trade with to give opportunity to our farmers, who will be able to recover quicker from this drought because of the free trade agreements that we have put in place. This is about a suite of measures that complement everything in the agriculture sector, whether it's in infrastructure, whether it's in the agriculture department or whether it's in water, because we understand regional Australia, we understand agriculture and we will deliver for them. Law Enforcement 33 15:10 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert My question is to the Minister for the Home Affairs. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's stable and certain approach to economic management helps guarantee the safety of Australians by providing our law enforcement agencies with the resources they need? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies? 15:10 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. This year we will put about $7 billion into the Home Affairs portfolio to support our agencies to help keep Australians safe. It is a very significant investment and it's a necessary one, but it's possible only because we've made the tough decisions over recent years to manage the budget well and to make sure we have the funding appropriate for the agencies. We have put into the 2019-20 budget $130 million for the whole-of-government drug strategy, $10 million to strengthen counter-fraud arrangements, $465 million for national security agencies' additional resourcing and $7 million for countering foreign interference. The $465 million investment is the largest single funding measure for the AFP's domestic policing capabilities in over a decade. What Australians get from us is certainty about the way in which we approach national security in this country. They know the Morrison government will make decisions that will always be in the best interests of the national security of our people, and we will continue to make sure that that is the case. But opposite there was panic and mayhem when they were last in government. They spent $16 billion when they completely destroyed the border protection system in this country, and it meant that they ripped $128 million out of the Australian Federal Police, $30 million out of the Australian Crime Commission, $27 million from AUSTRAC and $735 million and 700 staff from the Australian Customs Service in a 25 per cent reduction in sea cargo screening and a 75 per cent reduction in air cargo screening. Labor always, when in government, makes the wrong decisions when it comes to national security. They took out $125 million from ASIO. You hear all the faux outrage from those opposite, but whenever it comes to a national security bill or whenever it comes to a decision about strengthening our laws to keep Australians safe, they always either oppose it or seek to water the bill down. That's the reality. Don't listen to this nonsense from the Labor Party that somehow they are on the same page as we are on border protection or that there is no difference between us when it comes to national security; the reality is that the Labor Party, when in government, always seeks to oppose the strengthening of national security legislation. They take money out of our agencies and, when in opposition, they do exactly the same. They oppose measures that we've put in place to keep Australians safe, and all Australians should be aware of it. Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 33 DOCUMENTS Presentation 33 15:14 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. Documents made parliamentary papers in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018. Department of the House of Representatives 34 Presentation 34 15:14 The SPEAKER 00APG Pursuant to section 65 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 I present the annual report of the Department of the House of Representatives for 2018-19. Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018. BUSINESS 34 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 34 15:14 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce (): I move: That leave of absence until 22 November 2019 be given to Mr Christensen, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 34 15:14 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That leave of absence until 5 December 2019 be given to Dr M. J. Kelly, for personal illness and consequential surgery. Question agreed to. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 34 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:15 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the deputy leader of the opposition claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MARLES HWQ I do. The SPEAKER 00APG Please proceed. Mr MARLES HWQ During question time, the Minister for Home Affairs said that in 2014 Labor opposed measures which strengthened the character test at a point in time where I was the responsible spokesperson for the Labor Party in relation to immigration. That is not true. At that point in time, Labor supported measures to strengthen the character test and, indeed, the principle piece of legislation in 2014, the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill 2014., was absolutely supported by Labor in this House and in this parliament. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 34 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy 34 15:16 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fenner proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The government's lacklustre record on productivity, economic growth and wages. 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— 15:16 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Twenty-seven-year-old Robert Chang delivers food for work but it is his second job. He works long shifts as a postie and, after he's finished that, he works about 13 hours over the weekend for Uber Eats, delivering meals in south-west Sydney. He told the ABC, 'I am pretty much just no-lifing it—work, eat, sleep, rinse, repeat.' That is reality for many Australians in the modern economy. We know what the other side is going to say over this. We know they will say there are no problems in the Australian economy, because the Prime Minister told their party room today that, unless you're facing down a nuclear Holocaust, things are doing alright. So, unless you're in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis, no complaining. They will tell us on this side that we are irresponsible to point out the challenges in the Australian economy. But the fact is it is irresponsible not to warn of the storm clouds gathering on the horizon. The Australian economy today faces five big challenges: productivity, growth, jobs, wages and inequality. I will go through them in turn. Productivity is the engine of the economy and it has basically stalled under this government according to its own Productivity Commission. After a generation in which labour productivity had run at about two per cent, it's fallen most recently to 0.2 per cent, just one-tenth of its previous level. The Productivity Commission calls the results 'troubling' and 'mediocre'. In fact, productivity is going backwards in farming, in mining, in construction, in transport and in retail. In those sectors, workers are producing less per hour than they were the year before. The Productivity Commission often talks about capital deepening but now it has had to come up with a new term to describe what's going on under this government—capital shallowing. Treasury's own research finds that Australia is producing fewer start-ups and there is less job mobility. The Harvard Atlas of Economic Complexity found we are frighteningly undiversified. If you look through its rankings: Morocco, 90th; Uganda, 91st; Senegal, 92nd; Australia 93rd. The fact is we have too many eggs in too few economic baskets. And then there is growth. GDP per capita growth over the past four quarters has gone as follows: minus 0.13 per cent; minus 0.23 per cent—that's a per capita recession; 0.08 per cent; 0.04 per cent. If you add those together, you get a negative number. Over the last year, GDP per capita has bone backwards. Total output in the Australian economy per person has shrunk, not grown. But you won't hear that from the Treasurer. From the Treasurer, you will hear talk of 29 years of interrupted economic growth. What he means by that is he wants to take credit for population growth. This government is happy to demonise migrants any day of the week but underpinning their economic message is the fact that the population is growing. That's not much help to the Australians who are seeing their living standards falling. It's not just the headline growth figure. We've had disappointing figures on new car sales, building approvals and retail sales. The Treasurer promised a cash splash in July and August, but all we got was a retail trickle. When you have bond yields up, the gold price up and the cash rate at the historically low level of 0.75 per cent, you know you've got a serious growth problem. The fact is that no-one believes the government's heroic growth forecasts in their last budget. The IMF doesn't believe them, Deloitte doesn't believe them and Australian families at their kitchen tables know what's happening. We've got collapsing confidence and weak economic growth—the direct consequence of a lacklustre, rudderless government. When it comes to good news, the Prime Minister will shout it across the chamber. When it comes to bad news, he's quieter than Osher at a wedding ceremony. The fact is that Australians are relying on the Reserve Bank to support the economy. As Greg Jericho pointed out, if you're relying on monetary policy but you have no fiscal policy, it's a bit like swimming with one arm: it's twice as hard and the chances of drowning are twice as large. Many Australians are feeling like there is more month than money when they do their household finances. When it comes to jobs, the government likes to pat itself on the back, again for population growth and the employment numbers that come with that. But, if you compare our unemployment rate with that of Britain or New Zealand or Germany or the United States, you'll find our unemployment rate is at least a percentage point higher. In the United States, they have now got unemployment at three-point-something, but under this government it's always been five-point-something. That means that there are hundreds of thousands of Australians who would have a job if we had those countries' unemployment rates but don't have a job under the Liberals. Right now, for every available job, there are four people looking for work. In South Australia, there are nine jobseekers for every job opening. In Tasmania, there are 14 jobseekers for every job opening. Anglicare Australia has shown that the share of jobs available to someone with no qualifications and no experience has fallen from 22 per cent in 2006 to just 10 per cent today. If we had lower unemployment, it would be harder for employers to indulge in sexist or racist prejudices. We'd see more Indigenous Australians and more people with disabilities in work, because they are often the last people to be hired. We have a wages slump today. Australian wages have been in the doldrums throughout the period the government's been in office. Over the last six years, real wages have grown just 0.7 per cent a year. In the six years before that, they grew at 1.8 per cent a year, and that was a period spanning the global financial crisis. We've got wage theft, penalty rate cuts, public sector wage caps, slow productivity and declining unionisation contributing to the lousy wage outcomes in this country, to the worst wage growth on record, and it's under this government. Finally, we've got the challenge of inequality. According to ACOSS, more than one in six children are living in poverty. We had a report today, on the front of one of our newspapers, showing that two million Australians can't afford dental care. A report by Alviss and St Vincent de Paul found that the rate of electricity disconnections has gone up as many Australians deal with the fact that the Morrison government doesn't have an energy policy. Wealth inequality peaked in 2017-18, but we know the Australian Bureau of Statistics were pressured to make it a good media story, creating a narrative of so-called stable inequality. The fact is, though, that putting a big pair of rose-tinted glasses on inequality doesn't change what many Australians feel today. It doesn't change the fact that many Australians recognise that inequality is rising under this government. As the Prime Minister won't listen to the experts, I hope we can get him to listen to himself. In the Prime Minister's first speech in 2008 he said: ... the storm clouds are gathering. We must cast our eyes forward and embrace a new round of economic reforms. Now his approach seems to be: 'Storm clouds? What storm clouds? Let's just close our eyes and hope for the best.' If the economy were strong, you know full well that the Liberals would be claiming credit. But, when the economy is struggling, they won't take responsibility. Rather than getting the economy going again, all we have is finger pointing, blame shifting and wedge politics. They won't boost productivity, they won't raise wages, they won't lower unemployment, they won't boost growth and they won't fight poverty. What is the point of the Morrison government? I will close with the story of Peter Cooney. Peter is a 58-year-old bloke from Perth who had to quit his job to care for his mum when she got sick. He soon found himself caring for both his mother and his sister, who died within 10 months of one another. After their deaths, the former brick paver was unable to get a job. He's facing off against too many other applicants. He has no work and, thanks to the meagre rate of Newstart, essentially nowhere to live. He often sleeps in his car. When Peter was asked about the government's favourite talking point, 'The best form of welfare is a job,' his response was: Well, I'm quite happy, if they can find me a job, I'd rather be working. But unfortunately, with my qualifications and my age, it's not so easy. This is a man who used to manage a hotel in Cairns. He's a man who has worked as a brick paver. He's a man who quit his job to care for his relatives, who did the right thing by his own family, but doesn't have a government who will do the right thing by him. Peter is just one of thousands of Australians who are asking that question: what is the point of the Morrison government? When will the Morrison government step up to deal with the challenges of unemployment, of sluggish wage growth, of inequality, of low productivity? If they won't deal with those challenges, millions of Australians will be asking themselves, 'When can I get a fair deal?' 15:26 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin That is a very disappointing contribution from the shadow assistant minister. Absolutely predictable, but utterly disappointing. It's always tough for oppositions, I know. On one hand, Labor oppositions in particular are desperate to talk down the economy at any opportunity. But the former Labor government that this shadow assistant minister was a member of, the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, bestowed us when we came to office increasing unemployment, a worsening budget position and slower GDP growth. Ms Kearney interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Cooper is warned. Mr SUKKAR 242515 At the last election, what did we see? The shadow assistant minister has raised a litany of so-called problems, but what was the Labor Party prescription to those so-called issues in our economy? Universally, there were two prescriptions from the Labor Party. The first was higher taxes. If it moved, they taxed it, whether it was retirees, whether it was superannuation, whether it was small businesses or whether it was family trusts. If it moved, the Labor Party wanted to tax it. The second prescription from the Labor Party was higher spending. That's all we saw from the Labor Party, which again proved that Labor have not learnt the lessons many Australians hoped they would have learnt from the time they were in government. The shadow assistant minister bemoans having unemployment in the fives, as he calls it. He doesn't think it's good enough to have unemployment at 5.2 per cent, yet when we took office from the government he was a member of, unemployment was at 5.7 per cent. Was the shadow assistant minister at that time getting up in the parliament and arguing how 5.7 per cent was terrible? Or how a worsening budget position, taking the endowment of the Howard government—$70 billion in the bank and no net debt—to over a quarter of a trillion dollars of debt was such a terrible thing? Or how slowing GDP growth was such a terrible thing? Well, I haven't searched the Hansard, but I suspect the shadow assistant minister never made such speeches in this parliament. Let's look at some of the achievements that are owned by all Australians. Unlike many people opposite, we don't own the achievements of Australians, but we certainly take credit for creating an economic environment of stability and certainty and calmness that provides an environment to enable Australians to create wealth for themselves, their families and their businesses. We will deliver a surplus this year—extraordinarily important. It's extraordinarily important that the government says to Australians that our budget is no different to your household and no different to your business. You cannot keep borrowing endlessly, year on year, as the Labor Party seems to suggest you can. We don't take the approach of the Labor Party, which absolutely panics, as we saw time and time again in their lamentable period in government, which was what took us to the debt levels that we ultimately inherited. Again: jobs growth. It's very interesting that the shadow assistant minister skirted over the fact that 1.4 million jobs have been created. He tries to mock the government when we say that the best form of welfare is a job. And not just welfare in material terms but welfare in the most important ways: the dignity of having a job and the dignity of achieving something and furthering your own life and the life of your family. Of course having a job is the best form of welfare. To hear the shadow assistant minister criticising that self-evident fact highlights that, five months later, this tortured process that the Labor Party are going through is certainly not at its end. The shadow assistant minister was part of the former Labor economic team which was supposedly ready to govern. The shadow economic team whose prescription for every single ill in this country, in their view, was higher taxes—if it moves, tax it—and to spend more. We believe that 1.4 million jobs is an absolutely extraordinary effort. I had the honour of representing Australia at the APEC Finance Ministers' meeting in Santiago just last week to meet many of our counterparts. Many of our trading partners would often remark on Australia's economic success—over many years; we can't take credit for 28 years of uninterrupted economic growth. We can certainly take a great deal of credit, as Liberals and Nationals, for setting up the economy as we did in the Howard and Costello government. There was a blip on the radar with the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government and that lamentable period in office, but equilibrium is now back. Our trading partners asked about our jobs growth. They didn't criticise our jobs growth. What chutzpah from the shadow assistant minister to criticise 5.2 per cent unemployment, when the government he was a part of had unemployment at 5.7 per cent. That's many hundreds of thousands of additional people who couldn't get a job. Where were those speeches then? We believe that the outlook for jobs growth is good. There are challenges in our economy, no doubt. There are always challenges. The next challenge is always just around the corner. We all have to admit that. There is no doubt that global trading volumes are under significant pressure. There are aspects of confidence in some parts of the economy that of course we would like to be better. But the Labor Party prescription to all of those problems was to tax Australians more. It was repudiated at the election in the strongest possible way. The speech from the shadow assistant minister that we just heard indicates to me that the Labor Party have not learnt their lesson. Since the election, Australians have seen this government deliver on a policy that we spoke about day in, day out: personal income tax cuts. It is the most significant structural reform to our tax system that we have seen for decades. It will ensure that, by the time all of the personal income tax cuts are through, 94 per cent of Australians will not pay a higher marginal tax rate than 30c in the dollar. In fact, we've already seen, as of this week, tax refunds flowing to people's bank accounts in the order of about $17 billion to $18 billion. That's money in Australians' pockets, not in the government's. We want to be able to deliver a balanced budget, to be able to ensure that we have uninterrupted economic growth for our 29th year, to ensure that people can get personal income tax cuts and to ensure that there are opportunities for jobs out there. Of course we have sympathy when the shadow assistant minister refers to a specific case study of an individual who, through difficult circumstances, finds it's hard to get a job. But is the shadow assistant minister suggesting that if the Labor Party were in government there would be nobody struggling to find a job? Is that what the shadow assistant minister is seriously saying, particularly when the last time they were in government—and he was a member of that government—unemployment was higher than it is today? I say to the shadow assistant minister: don't come to the dispatch box and make ridiculous statements like that. Let's be adults. Be an adult about it. We are creating an environment for Australians that has some of the best opportunities in the world. Would we like it to be better? Of course. Are we working every day to make it better? Yes. Should the Labor Party support the government in our endeavours? Of course they should. Should the Labor Party accept that their economic record over decades is so woeful that they should back us in, because we know more? The record speaks for itself. Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 Member for Lyons. Mr SUKKAR 242515 I was reminded of our legacy when I saw that the Future Fund had reached $162 billion. It had annual growth last year of 11½ per cent—annualised growth of 10½ per cent. That is endowed to the Australian people. That was a creation of the Howard-Costello government. It was only possible because coalition governments live within our means. We create the environment for strong economic growth. We create the environment for strong jobs growth. And the Morrison government is following in the footsteps of the Howard government in doing just that. 15:36 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo For the benefit of the member who's just spoken, it's not just one case study of underemployment in our country that we're talking about. It is 1.9 million workers who are underemployed in our country on this government's watch. They are the statistics that were released last week, but that's not what the government is talking about. Underemployment in this country is causing a massive problem. Uber doesn't count as a decent, secure job. The gig economy doesn't count as a decent, secure job. The hidden truth in the unemployment numbers that this government is touting as being a great economic achievement is the fact that people are underemployed. Those opposite have taken full-time jobs, on their watch, and created hundreds of insecure, casual, part-time jobs. The fact that workers in our country have to work two or three jobs to try and make ends meet is a disgrace; it is an indictment on this government. That is their economic record. That is their record on how Australian workers are being treated on their watch. It's not just the underemployment problem that we have as a result of this government's failure to address these key economic problems. It's also stagnant wages. Stagnant wages are a real problem in our economy. Wages are not increasing. CEO wages are increasing, but not the wages of the hardworking people, particularly people who are on the lowest of incomes. Those opposite have not done anything about the migrant worker exploitation, which is also causing problems in our economy. They turn a blind eye to what is going on there. Their heads are down; they don't want to engage. They're just not interested in addressing the chronic problem that we have with wage stagnation. When they talk about industrial relations—and it does fear me that this government is talking about industrial relations—they want the market to be more flexible. They want workplaces to be more flexible. They're pretty flexible right now, when the majority of Australian workers are casual and stuck on the minimum wage, with no pathway out. A clear example of that is that those opposite boast about the fact that the gap between men's and women's wages is closing. It's only because men's wages are plummeting. That's not something to celebrate. The fact that women continue to be low paid and now men are becoming low paid is not a great economic outcome. That is their record. Also under this government, as a result of its failure to deliver an economy that is fair, household income standards are declining. People are going backwards. That is how those opposite are failing to deliver for Australians. They might be delivering for CEOs, they might be delivering for the one per cent, but they are not delivering for households. Since the government came to power, real household median income is lower than it was when Labor was last in government. On this government's watch, wages are rising at one-sixth the pace of profits. When you remove the people at the very top, they are stagnating and they are crashing. People are losing good, secure jobs to insecure part-time jobs—the scourge of labour hire. If you really want to talk about what's crushing productivity, it's the fact that flexibility in the workplace has gone too far. When workers no longer have full-time jobs where they feel secure, they are not productive. Take a look at agriculture. Talk to anybody who is coming up to the fruit picking season, and they will tell you that every single day they have at least 20 to 30 backpackers they are training. How is that good for productivity if you're churning through the training costs day in, day out? And it's not just in agriculture. It is in the mining sector. If a worker is not secure in their job, they don't speak up about worker safety. They don't speak up about what's happening in the workplace. They worry about having a job the next day. They are not their most productive. Because of the flexibility in the labour market, productivity is crashing. More and more employers are spending more on training costs than what they could be spending on securing jobs. This is this government's record. It's nothing to be proud of. They are presiding over this economy. The stats from last week alone are something they should be ashamed of—one in six children live in poverty, 1.9 million people are underemployed in our economy, one in four women skip meals because they need to feed their children. It is a disgrace. (Time expired) 15:41 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls I appreciate the fact that we get the opportunity to respond to this motion put forward that the government has a lacklustre record on productivity, economic growth and wages. Labor's approach to this is typical class warfare, effectively going after the big end of town, which somehow they see the coalition as being supportive of. The Labor Party has just finished contributing to the idea that, in the horticulture sector, there is worker and migrant exploitation. Two weeks ago, we had Kristina Keneally come down to hold a roundtable about worker exploitation in the Goulburn Valley. Two people turned up. Ultimately, when you have an area that actually has full employment—5.2 per cent in the Goulburn Valley is in fact full employment. Right around regional Victoria, there are job vacancies that outweigh the unemployed. This is not just a Goulburn Valley thing. This is not just a Bendigo thing. This exists throughout regional Victoria, where there are job vacancies that outweigh the unemployment rate. They may not be the jobs that people would like, but they are opportunities for employment. The biggest problem we have in the Goulburn Valley in regional Victoria when it comes to horticulture, which happens to be a seasonal occupation, is obviously that there's going to be an area where we do have really high demands at certain times of the year and where we have very few Australians prepared to do the job. The opportunity to fill that labour with backpackers, seasonal worker programs or the range of other agricultural visas that we need is simply common sense. If you want to fight this, then you're going to be fighting Australian families. You're going to be fighting Australian businesses. The Labor Party is picking a war with these Australian families and Australian businesses. When the migrants come out here, whether they be backpackers or seasonal workers, they're here for a short while, and they want to make as much money as they can. They want to pick fruit for not 38 hours a week. They want to work picking fruit and packing fruit for 50 or 60 hours. They get a casual rate, which is above the rate of a permanent worker. So they get a casual rate which has penalties built it into and easily the vast majority of them are happy to work at this casual rate for 50 hours. However, they are simply not allowed to work more than 38 hours unless they go on time-and-a-half or double-time. So that is an absolute situation when you are trying to grow the economy in the regions. They are being held back by the Labor Party. The Labor Party's way of trying to fix this is simply to go to those Australian businesses and tax them more. If you look at what the Australian Labor Party currently have as a way of taking the economy forward, it is $38 billion worth of extra taxes a year than what we currently have. That $38 billion roughly works out to an extra $100 million worth of tax every day. So the Labor Party, if they had had the opportunity to be in government, would have taxed Australians $100 million extra yesterday. They'd be taxing Australians an extra $100 million today and another $100 million tomorrow. It wouldn't take long for $100 million in additional taxes every day to find its way to affect each and every Australians' pocket. This is not something that is going to affect somebody else. If Labor have this high-taxing, high-spending approach to somehow or other running government, running Australia as a nation and running the Australian nation as a business, this extra $100 million a day is going to be coming after you as an Australian. As a working Australian, you must always be aware that this $38 billion of additional taxes that the Labor Party are still trumpeting as the way to run this country is $100 million for each and every day of the calendar year. They'll be coming after you if they get the chance. 15:46 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I too rise to support this discussion of a matter of public importance which talks about this government's lacklustre ability to increase productivity, the backwardness of our economic growth and the lowest wages on record and lowest wage growth in the history of this nation. It's not a surprise this is happening when you see a government that basically doesn't want to get involved, when you see a government that sees the figures that come out every quarter and just sits back and says: 'Nothing to see here. This is all rosy. We're doing well.' It's looking at the next political fix rather than the reality of ensuring that we have economic growth, good productivity and the creation of jobs, which would then flow on to everything else that we do in this nation—our education, our health system, people being able to pay their bills et cetera. It's no surprise, when you look at our productivity and how it's going backwards, that under this government's watch in the six to seven years that it's been in government we've seen the automobile industry absolutely diminished in this nation. It has disappeared off the face of Australia. We lost real jobs in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. Approximately 100,000 people involved in that industry have had their jobs wiped out. So it's not rocket science that productivity's gone backwards. That's unlike when we, Labor, were in government, where we faced the largest and most difficult period of our economic history during the global financial crisis, where we put levers in place and where we actually took action and put a plan in place to ensure that we got out of it, created some jobs and continued to go forwards instead of backwards. In fact, we were one of the only nations in the world that went forwards instead of backwards. That's because we put a plan in place and we cared about the individual Australians who would have lose their jobs if we did what the then opposition was saying—'Sit back and do nothing and it will all work out.' That is exactly what this government is doing right now. We know that without productivity there is a downfall in every other area across the board. Whether it be health, whether it be education, whether it be low wages, all these have a negative effect when productivity isn't going in the right direction. We know that with low wages, for example, when the economy isn't doing too well, if you give a little bit of an increase to the workers that money goes straight back into the economy. That's because there is a need to pay the mortgage, there's a need to pay for electricity, there's a need to perhaps buy some whitegoods or there is a need to buy those little extras that people normally cannot afford because of their low wages. So, the moment you give that little bit extra it goes straight back into the economy, assisting the economy to tick and move around. That is what this government is not doing. They're wiping their hands of it. They're saying, 'There's nothing to see here,' and constantly playing politics and telling us how great they are and how many jobs they have created. Yes, they've created a few jobs, but all part-time, at the expense of full-time jobs—real jobs with a real wage and real wage growth. We've gone backwards by creating thousands of part-time jobs in which people, as we heard the member for Bendigo say, are having to pick up three part-time jobs to be able to keep food on the table, pay their rent, get their kids to school and pay for their health care needs. It's unacceptable to see a First World nation like Australia go backwards after having been a leader and having grown continuously over the last 20 years by an average of two per cent in this area. We are going backwards and we still haven't seen a plan from the government or anything being put in action that focuses on this very important issue, which affects people's lives. It affects workers' lives. It affects the ability to pay their bills, to send their kids to school and to buy products, which helps the economy. It is a shame that today we have a government that shrugs its shoulders and looks over the chamber to blame Labor for when they were in government, even though they been in government for seven-odd years and have done nothing about this issue. There are things that can be put in place. There are levers that they can pull, but they're not doing it. They're sitting back and hoping it will tick along and turn around. Well, it ain't going to turn around. Unless we get wage growth it's not going to turn around. We need wage growth and that extra money going into the pockets of workers so that they can go out and spend that money, which will help the economy. It's not rocket science. It's pretty straightforward. But when we talk about wage growth the government constantly says, 'There is nothing for us to do here; it's an economy and it works on its own.' Well, it doesn't. That's why you're in government—to actually put things in place to turn things around. It's a shame— (Time expired) 15:51 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid Those opposite would have you believe that they are in a position to criticise the government about the economy, that they are in a position to comment on the number of jobs being created in this country. The fact is that it is our government, the Morrison government, that has the budget back in black, for the first time in 11 years. We've finally cleaned up the mess left behind by the Labor Party and we have no intention of taking lectures from a party that consistently drives this country into deficit. Despite the global economic landscape, Australia is in its 28th consecutive year of economic growth. The economy grew by 0.5 per cent in the June quarter, when our comparable economies globally recorded negative growth. Our economy is not immune to conditions beyond our borders, which have had a significant impact on countries such as Germany, the UK and Singapore. We have instead continued to see growth stronger than the OECD average. In fact, Australia is one of 10 countries to have a AAA credit rating. We have already taken steps to encourage further economic growth. In the first week of this parliament, we passed personal income tax cuts to put more money back into the pockets of more than 10 million taxpayers, 4.5 million of whom receive the full $1,080 tax relief. In the last parliament, it was our government that passed tax cuts for small and medium sized businesses, as well as increasing the instant asset write-off of $30,000. It is our government that is investing $100 billion into infrastructure projects nationally, including improved local roads, such as Homebush Bay Drive in my electorate of Reid, or delivering WestConnex to ease congestion. I commend the Prime Minister for his work with the state premiers to ensure that these infrastructure projects are delivered as quickly as possible. It is our government that has delivered new trade agreements with Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong to provide new opportunities for businesses in industries including agriculture, manufacturing, mining, education, tourism and financial services. Our government is committed to providing more opportunities for Australians to get into work. Last financial year, over 300,000 additional jobs were created, with employment growing by 2.6 per cent. As of April this year, more than 1.3 million more Australians are in jobs since the government was elected. Nearly 60 per cent of these have been full-time jobs. The unemployment rate is now 5.2 per cent. When Labor left office, the unemployment was 5.7 per cent and rising. Underemployment also fell slightly from 8.5 per cent to 8.3 per cent in August. Not only are we creating jobs but wages are continuing to grow with 2.3 per cent growth recorded in the last year to June 2019. This is relatively stable growth. The coalition is firmly focused on getting on with the job of providing the things that Australians care about—a strong economy, opportunities and jobs, and key infrastructure to get them home sooner and safer. While in office, the Labor Party demonstrated their ineptitude for economic management and left this country with a fiscal mess, and we are only now recovering from it. In the face of challenging global conditions, only the coalition government can be trusted to continue to deliver economic growth, more jobs and lower taxes while the Labor Party can be trusted to deliver debt and higher taxes. 15:56 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle For those people listening to this debate today, you could be forgiven for thinking that we all exist in some parallel universe because the perspectives offered by members on the government benches and those on this side of the House could not be more different. That comes from a very different lived reality of the Australian people. Words are cheap. So let's have a look at this government's track record, shall we, and what the state of the economy is right now. After six years of this Liberal government, despite continuing to blame Labor for absolutely everything—we tend to forget you actually have been in government for six years and we keep trying to remind you of that—the economy has slowed substantially. That is under your watch. This is not something Labor's dreaming up here. This isn't something that we're just sort of talking about over here. You've only got to look to the RBA, look to the IMF or look to any of your business advisory councils. All of them are saying the same thing: growth is so slow now; in fact, it's the slowest since the global financial crisis. The last time we had to endure a big economic shock, the Labor government at that time navigated us carefully through it. And how did we do that? We injected stimulus into the economy. But this is a government that not only does it not accept that the economy is the slowest it's been since the global financial crisis; it doesn't accept that there is—we've heard figures just dreamt up on the other side that wages are growing. You go and tell that to the workers who we meet who are actually seeing their wages not just flatline, at times going backwards—absolutely going the wrong way. There are very few Australians who are going to be standing up cheering you on when you say things like, 'Wages are growing really well. The economy is tickety-boo. Everything is absolutely fine here.' Last week was Anti-Poverty Week. We had a look at what that looks like in Australia. My colleagues before me spoke about massive underemployment in this country and the cobbling together of insecure part-time jobs to eke out an existence for your family to cover those ever-increasing costs of living expenses. Let's not forget your promise when you abolished the so-called carbon tax. Let's not forget your promise that electricity prices would be down that and people would get this $500 cash injection. What happened to that? I can tell you right now: nobody out there is talking about your tax cuts right now either. They're saying, 'We don't have enough money to pay the bills right now. Our wages are going out the back door. We can't get enough work in order to have a secure family existence here, and we are in a community where the structural inequalities are growing wider than ever before.' Three million Australians are living below the poverty line. One in six children in Australia is in that category of living below the poverty line. I've got to tell you that nobody in my community thinks that is a good economic plan. This is a government that's got a lot of thought about political strategy, but not much when it comes to an economic plan for ensuring that everybody in our communities get to benefit and have some decent quality of life. What is that poverty playing out like in the community of Newcastle? It's the overstretching of community services like Nova for Women and Children. Nova is seeing more than 100 extra women aged over 55 now presenting at their service for assistance. The Minister for Housing got up a little earlier and has just come back into the chamber. I'm glad he's here. I sat here for a moment thinking maybe he will articulate an injection of funds into the building of new affordable housing for Australia. God knows we need 750,000 of them. That's not an item on this government's books. That's not something you're thinking about. Yet, in addition to an increase to the Newstart rate, which a lot of people—in fact, everybody except the Morrison Government—now accept is one of the best things you could do right now to stimulate the Australian economy, the next best thing would be to build some houses. Build some social housing for Australian people to be housed in a safe place— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member will resume her seat. I call the member for Stirling. 16:01 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling Let me start with some words from our PM, ScoMo, from his very first party room address after the election. The PM said to us, 'Let me touch on a point here around why Australia has voted for us—because we believe what Australians believe.' Let me touch on some of those fundamental beliefs. We believe in small government; lower taxes; the rights and freedoms of the individual; and the central importance of strong families. Those are the beliefs which shaped our policies which we took to the election and which we are now implementing. On small government, compliance costs have been reduced for businesses, individuals and community groups by some $6 billion since 2013. This has included simplifying business activity statements for 2.7 million businesses and the doubling of the ASIC financial reporting threshold. The government will also pay up to $300 million to each state and territory that also works to cut red tape. On lower taxes, we believe that Australians should keep more of what they earn. That is why, once our reduction of tax strategy is fully implemented over five years, 94 per cent of Australians will pay no more than 30 cents in the dollar. There are over 19½ thousand small businesses in my electorate of Stirling. As I move around the electorate, I am struck by how so many owners of these businesses comment to me that they are thankful for what this Morrison government is doing to back them, like Richard at the Stirling IGA. Richard is just getting on with the job, like his father did before him, ordering great food—they have a wonderful gourmet food section out there—employing locals and working hard. They're servicing customers and keeping customers happy. And I said to Rich, 'Mate, what's going well? What's not going well? What can I do even better as your federal member?' And Rich, in a true Aussie understated fashion said, 'Yeah, nah, it's all pretty good.' Don't get me wrong: Rich and his team work extremely hard to make a profit, but he and his staff get to keep more of what they earn, and the reason is twofold. Firstly, we've reduced the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 27.5 per cent and that is going down further again to 25 per cent. This is a historic 50-year low. These changes will benefit 3.4 million Australian small-to-medium businesses employing seven million Australians. Secondly, Rich and those like Lauren, who is also a local working for him, will take home more of what they earn because of cuts to personal income tax. So, Rich didn't have any complaints for me, but—and I think this is important—he could have articulated an alternative. If a Labor government had been in power, Rich would have turned to me and said, 'Vince, there are some massive problems around here.' He would have said, 'My transport and electricity costs have skyrocketed because we're feeling the pain of the reckless 45 per cent emissions reduction target that's been put in place.' Rich would have said, 'My staff are taking home less of what they earn because there's been no cuts'—as were planned by the coalition—'to the company tax rate and personal income tax. And, by the way, Vince, I know it's not your fault but I have to tell you that my parents are devastated that they're not going to be able to afford Christmas presents for the kids this year because the retirees tax has absolutely slugged them.' This is what $387 billion of extra tax would look like on the ground. I'm not heartless; I confess that there are some good people on the other side of this chamber. This is why we have some pockets of resistance, some smart people, saying, 'Let's ditch our socialist agenda. Let's get behind the Australian economy and behind Australians.' We're hearing some smart people saying, 'Let's mirror the coalition's commitment to the Paris agreement, reducing carbon emissions by 26 to 28 per cent, and scrap the retirees tax.' I welcome these sentiments. But on this side we don't need to be convinced because we are already on the side of the Australian people, we are in their corner. Certainly we do face some global economic headwinds. But Australia is in its 29th year of economic growth and we have brought the budget back into balance for the first time in 11 years. We are delivering strong economic management, paying for essential services and letting Australians get on with what is important to them. 16:06 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I truly thank you, Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak about this government's poor record on productivity, economic growth and wages. As the Productivity Commission reported in June, productivity growth in our nation has basically stalled. After a generation of labour productivity that grew by almost two per cent a year, year on year, growth has now tumbled to 0.2 per cent on the watch of those opposite. Productivity is slipping in farming, mining, construction, transport, retail and labour. Why is this important? A more productive can look after and be more generous to those disadvantaged people that the member for fanner was talking about, that those opposite don't want to hear about. It can also build the social housing that the member for Newcastle was just talking about. We can reduce our impact on the natural environment and we can play a bigger role in world affairs. Without rising productivity, wages will eventually stagnate, as they are starting to do—and those opposite aren't helping by cutting penalty rates—and the standard of living in this country, the lucky country, will stop increasing. Productivity is the engine of the economy. These findings that we have heard about recently are adding to the mountain of evidence that, as we have just heard, those opposite have a political plan but they don't have an economic plan to help lift productivity, fight wage stagnation and boost our economy's performance. This is concerning to all Australians. I can tell you on behalf of Territorians, who are doing it tough, that the slogans about certainty and stability the government keeps spewing out in question time do nothing to fill their fridges, pay their bills or educate their kids. Those opposite can repeat all they like that they know how to manage the economy—as if it some magic spell that will have the Australian people forget about what their lived experience is every day. It can't, and Australians know that. After six years of coalition rule, the fact that people's lived experiences in this country are not what the government is suggesting they are—and they don't want to hear stories about those who are doing it tough—just says that this is marketing spin. Marketing spin—funded empathy, unfunded empathy or whatever they want to go on about—is not going to help 1.8 million Australians find work. Real economic indicators—the IMF, Deloittes and the World Bank—are all saying that instead of kicking funding promises down the road, particularly in infrastructure, the government should get on and start spending some of the funds from the Australian taxpayer that they have already promised they would spend. I am glad the Prime Minister has joined us in the chamber. There have been delays to our $100 million City Deal. Kakadu funding that's been promised continues to be kicked down the road. There have been hints of funding for a nation-building shiplift for Darwin harbour, but that's all we hear—hints. There's the curious case of the ever-shrinking defence infrastructure promises in the NT. Those promises are being revised down at exactly the same time as the Reserve Bank is saying those opposite should start doing some of the infrastructure spending they have already promised. I asked the Prime Minister during question time why it is that only $50 million of the $5 billion North Australian Infrastructure Fund has been spent since it was announced in 2015. That's not a great track record on infrastructure spending. We want to see it improve, and it's not just us. It's the Reserve Bank of Australia that is saying it would be smart. The lived experience of Australians is being overlooked by a government that is focused on spin. It needs to do more to lift productivity and get wages moving. 16:11 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan To the Australian people I say this: you have, in the Morrison government, a government that is on the side of your economic advancement, a government that is about growing the economy to ensure that your family have the best choices available to them. You have a government that is on your side, that is in your corner, that has your back. It is a stable government that is calmly rolling out a plan for an even stronger economy. In contrast, the debate today from Labor members opposite has been like a recital of their greatest hits. The Labor members opposite were crowing about how they dealt with the economy. There was the panic stimulus that they tried to put into the economy by sending cheques to dead people. There was rhetoric from the Labor members opposite about how the top end of town is dragging us all down. They've dusted off the same rhetoric that in May was so comprehensively rejected by the Australian people. Labor members during this debate were talking to the Australian people about how they could spend their money better than they could. They were lecturing them about how, if only the Australian people would yield to their $387 billion in taxes, they would take that money and spend it better. Most concerning was that time and time again during this debate we had, from the Labor members opposite, rhetoric talking down our Australian economy; talking down what Australians could achieve; talking down our plan to grow this economy to bring everybody up, rather than having somebody fall at the expense of somebody else. There are challenges to the economy; we know that. But we have a prescription for it that's different to that of the Labor members opposite. Our prescription for the challenges that face us, those global headwinds, is to build them into our budget, to have a strong economic and financial plan to meet those challenges. That is unlike the prescription of Labor members opposite—we heard it today, we heard it in May and they're still repeating it—which is that they need $387 billion in taxes out of people's pockets because they know how to spend Australians' money better than they do. Let's look at the strong financial plan that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are delivering, which has built in those economic challenges and headwinds that we face. Let's see the results of that: a budget that is returning to balance for the first time in 11 years and an Australian economy that continues to grow, with employment growth more than twice the OECD average. It is a significant achievement. We are one of only 10 developed countries with an AAA credit rating, setting the Australian economy apart from those of the rest of the world. There were 300,000 additional jobs created in 2018-19, because that's what this government is all about—creating jobs. Why? Not because we love statistics but because jobs create choices—choices for Australian families, choices for mums and dads to provide education and provide opportunities for their kids. Employment grew by 2.6 per cent during the 2018-19 year. Wages increased by 2.3 per cent in the last year, while inflation ran at 1.6 per cent. That's on top of this government's economic achievements in helping to keep the cost of living down, like the big-stick legislation that we were talking about earlier. And we have a budget that is returning to surplus on top of tax cuts for millions of Australians that are helping them put more money in their pockets so, again, they can make the right choices for their families. All that we hear from the Labor members opposite, in contrast, is about their $387 billion worth of taxes; how they'd like to restart their rampant spending and their crisis stimulus, which sends cheques to dead people; and how they would like to implement policies that they took to the last election that were comprehensively rejected by Australians—policies that they can't even cost. That's how much they care about the challenges facing the economy: they are willing to go to the Australian people and put before them policies on which they themselves cannot even tell the Australian people what they will cost or what they would do to the economy. That's why our government are better economic managers. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG The time allotted for this debate has concluded. BUSINESS 43 BUSINESS Rearrangement 43 16:16 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 33, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 43 16:16 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition speaking for an equal period of time on notice No. 1. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 44 MOTIONS National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse 44 Reference to Federation Chamber 48 16:48 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 48 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 48

Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019

Consideration of Senate Message 48 16:51 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together. I call the minister. 16:51 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That the amendments be agreed to. 16:51 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam I'm pleased to stand and discuss the much-improved bill that has come back to us from the other place, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019. The amendments that the senators agreed to will see farm owners and investors protected from new taxes that would otherwise have been imposed by the government. It will see small businesses provided with additional time and capacity to deal with the tax office before the tax office takes the serious step of reporting them to debt notification agencies. It will close a loophole allowing superannuation theft not closed six months earlier, and this will put an end to certain businesses pocketing their employees' rightful superannuation guarantees. But I'd like to note that the amendments to schedule 3 of this bill would never have happened if the Assistant Treasurer had been the only one on the job. I remember very well being here on 31 July as the Assistant Treasurer stood across from me and assured me that the schedule in question was: … simply an integrity measure to tighten the link between claiming deductions for holding vacant land and earning assessable income. I remember quite clearly raising some concerns about the schedule. The Assistant Treasurer claimed: These amendments will not apply to land held by the owner or related entities to carry on a business where there is a substantial building or premise on the land or where a property has been built on the land and it's available for rent. Later on, on 2 September 2019, I was unsurprised to read the Assistant Treasurer claim in the Daily Telegraph that the proposed changes would not affect owners of unsafe residential towers. But, as it turns out, nobody else agreed with the Assistant Treasurer. As a Victorian, he may not be across the issues that are going on with unsafe residential towers that we have learnt about here in New South Wales, but we on this side of the House are. In the same article in the Daily Telegraph, the tax practice leader at Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, Mr Michael Croker, noted that: … newly constructed apartments impacted by structural defects, for example Opal Towers and Mascot Towers— in Sydney— … could be inadvertently caught by these provisions as they are no longer lawfully able to be occupied due to the structural defects … We also had the Tax Institute of Australia note in their submission to the Senate inquiry on the bill that the government's own measure could impact on farming land, leading farmland owners paying more in tax. This was a shocking revelation as farm owners already stricken by the drought that this government is comprehensively failing to address adequately would've been forced to pay more taxes due to the poor drafting of the Liberal and National governments. I acknowledge that the government probably didn't intend to pass legislation that would see farm owners and investors pay more tax as a result of these measures. Indeed, the government's own senators recommended that these issues must be addressed in their report on the bill. We now have, happily, the Assistant Treasurer, three months later, backing the amendments that Labor first drew to their attention when the bill was in this House—problems that they claim never existed. However embarrassing it may be for the government to admit they made a mistake, that embarrassment pales into insignificance when compared to the burden that would've been visited upon the owners, or the renters, of uninhabitable premises or the owners of that land that would have attracted that tax in advertently. We thank the government and the Assistant Treasurer for finally getting onto the job and fixing up the problems with their original bill. We commend these amendments to the House. 16:56 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin Can I thank the shadow Assistant Treasurer for supporting the bill. He had supposedly a whole lot of concerns that he couldn't explain at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight he's now trying to rewrite history. But, nonetheless, I thank the way in which the shadow Assistant Treasurer and his office have engaged. As I said at the time, it was never an intention of this bill, nor is it very arguable, that in its original form met the intentions that the government stated at the time. Having said that, there's nothing wrong with putting it beyond doubt and ensuring that senators, in particular, with specific concerns around vacant agricultural land and indeed properties affected by natural disasters, are made crystal clear in the bill. In that sense, I was very happy as minister to accede to their request, noting it was never the intention of the bill that it be done so. To put that beyond doubt, I think this is a very good outcome for the House. I also want to thank the Centre Alliance, in particular, for some of their recommendations in relation to assisting small businesses in relation to one of the schedules. Again, we were very happy, as a government, to accede to sensible requests to clarify, make very clear, what was always the intention of the legislation. We therefore commend the bill and the amendments. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019 50

Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019

Second Reading 50 16:58 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill of this year. This is legislation that has been around this parliament or, more to the point, the previous parliament for some time. And, as I think the Shadow Treasurer has indicated, subject to support by the government for a number of amendments which I will address in the course of my remarks, the opposition will in a constructive way be supporting this legislation. This is, I need to stress, not legislation that we would be necessarily bringing forward, were we on the Treasury benches. We instead would be focused on developing a coherent national energy policy of the type that has been recommended by so many different advisory bodies, whether they are government electricity agencies established under the National Electricity Market, think tanks like the Grattan Institute or any of the myriad bodies that consider this matter. It's quite clear that what the energy market, particularly the electricity market, needs is a coherent national energy policy, and I will talk about that a little later in my remarks. It is also important to note that this legislation, or any variant of it, has not been recommended by the consumer watchdog. It is apparently a piece of legislation designed to improve the circumstances of consumers in the electricity market. Not only was it not recommended by the ACCC after its lengthy examination of the retail electricity market but, indeed, it recommended against a divesture power, as did Professor Ian Harper in his review of competition policy for the government a couple of years earlier. As any observer of this debate would know, various business groups, energy users and energy suppliers over the last 12 or 18 months have been critical of the legislation in its different iterations. But since the election in May, the business groups, most notably the Business Council, have changed their views from one of opposition to one of instead seeking to work with the government to improve the operation of this bill, and that too, in the spirit of being a constructive opposition, has been the approach of the Labor Party. Most notably, after considerable debate about the impact of potential ministerial overreach in the operation of the original bill, it is pleasing to see that government has curbed or pulled back the ministerial power that would be able to be exercised under this legislation and instead has properly substituted a role for the ACCC—the body set up under legislation of the Commonwealth parliament to protect the interests of consumers—and also a very important role for the Federal Court. We take that as a significant improvement to the bill given that, since its original presentation, we had been complaining of overreach on the part of ministers. There are, though, a series of outstanding measures that I am sure the shadow Treasurer will refer to that I want to talk to in some detail that are the subject of amendments that I'll be moving in the third reading debate. The first is that we have complained since the original presentation of this bill that it contained a very significant loophole to allow the privatisation of publicly owned electricity assets—namely, the forcible divesture of publicly owned electricity assets and the transfer of those assets to private companies. We know the Liberal Party is addicted to the privatisation of electricity. I come from the state of South Australia where all of the electricity assets were privatised by the Olsen government, by the Treasurer, Rob Lucas, who, again, is the Treasurer of South Australia, and is now undertaking at privatisation exercise of our rail services. In Victoria too and in other jurisdictions, we saw over the course of the 1990s and 2000s wholesale privatisation by state Liberal governments of our electricity assets. We were promised there would be more choice and there would be better prices and competition in the market, but I think anyone who has had even a casual look at the operation of the electricity market knows the privatisations have worked for companies but they haven't worked for consumers. The member for Kennedy and Labor identified this loophole in the original presentation of the bill. The government went some way to closing the loophole but it is clear that, in the form in which the minister has presented this bill, there is still the capability of a divesture order to downgrade the level of public ownership of an existing electricity asset in those states like Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania where, time and time again, the community, through state election campaigns, has voiced its view that it wants its electricity assets kept in public hands. So I will be moving an amendment to ensure that that loophole is closed absolutely and completely, to ensure that, if the operation of this legislation results in the divesture of a publicly owned asset, it can only be divested to another publicly owned asset with the same or greater level of public ownership. We are also obviously, as a Labor Party, very concerned that workers and their entitlements not be prejudiced by the operation of this legislation. Workers, after all, have no responsibility for the conduct that is apparently the driver of this legislation being put in place, no responsibility for allegations of cartel conduct or reductions of competition in the market. It is, I'm sure, no surprise to anyone that this government has apparently paid no attention at all to the possibility that workers' entitlements will be reduced by the operation of this legislation. It's simply not a matter that is typically on the radar of this government. Our advice is that the transmission of business provisions contained in the Fair Work Act do not cover a transmission that is caused by a forcible divestiture of the type contemplated by this legislation. So I will be moving an amendment in the third reading to ensure that the transmission of business provisions of the Fair Work Act are deemed to apply to this type of transmission—namely, a forcible divestiture. That will ensure that those entitlements that are contained in registered enterprise agreements and in awards are preserved and protected for workers, who are, as I said, not the subject of the so-called mischief that lies at the heart of this legislation. I also foreshadow that there is a further concern—that is, that entitlements that are not contained in registered agreements or awards but have still been properly negotiated between trade unions and employers are not also protected by this legislation. It is utterly important that many of those important safeguards, many of those hard-fought entitlements, whether they be around redundancy, portability of employment or what have you, also be safeguarded under the operation of this legislation. So I foreshadow very clearly—and we have communicated to the government very clearly—that we intend to explore this issue in detail in a Senate inquiry and to also consider amendments that would sit alongside the amendment I'm already moving around the operation of the Fair Work Act transmission of business provisions to make sure that worker entitlements contained in unregistered agreements are similarly protected. We expect that the government will support that amendment, because, after all, it is not the workforce that is the target of this legislation; it is the companies themselves. Finally, these are extraordinary powers. They've been described as such by the ACCC and many other observers. Forcible divestiture is not a power that's typically been enshrined in legislation, let alone used in Australia. If this parliament is to adopt this power in the energy market, it should be the subject of an independent review after a period, before the sunset clause kicks in, to assess whether the operation of the legislation matches the rhetoric of this government. And I'll be moving an amendment in the third reading on that as well. I would hope that all of those amendments, particularly the amendments that close the loophole on privatisation and protect worker entitlements, will be supported by the government. We've already indicated to the government that, if those amendments are supported in this House, we will support the passage of the bill, but, if those amendments are not supported by the government, we will be voting against the bill. We're very confident that our amendments improve the bill markedly, adding to the improvements that we, along with other stakeholders, were able to force the government to make to the bill before it was originally presented during the last parliament. I want to be clear that this bill, in no way, is a substitute for a proper, coherent national energy policy. As the second reading amendment moved already by the shadow Treasurer very clearly points out, this is not an academic point. Australia finds itself in the throes of the deepest energy crisis since the mid-1970s, and, unlike the energy crisis of the mid-1970s, which was caused by an external shock—the oil crisis—this energy crisis is the product of profound public policy failure. Households and energy-using businesses are paying the price for this crisis. Wholesale prices are up across the National Electricity Market, on average, by 158 per cent since the crisis really took grip in 2015. Power bills for households and businesses are going up and up, and it's quite clear that the market expects those bills to continue to go up. The Financial Review only reported very recently that forward prices in the electricity market are up 29 per cent in just the 12 months since the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the National Energy Guarantee were both dispatched in a coalition party room ambush. The Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction pretends that prices are going down. He quite misleadingly points to the operation of the default market offer, which was a recommendation from the ACCC, as well. Labor was the first party in this parliament to indicate its support for a default market offer, which would operate to the benefit of the small minority of consumers, estimated at substantially less than 10 per cent, who have been languishing on standing offers for far too long. They have seen a price reduction in their bills as a result of the operation of the default market offer. But the minister needs to be up-front and honest. He needs to be straight with the Australian people that that constitutes substantially less than 10 per cent of the market, and they have been paying far too much for far too long. More than 90 per cent of consumers and the vast bulk of energy businesses continue to see their bills going up and up and up, wrecking household budgets and jeopardising the viability of many, many high-energy-using businesses, in particular. And it is exacerbated, of course, by the complete mess we have seen in the gas market. The key problem, as identified by advice after advice, is the lack of a coherent national energy policy. The Australian Financial Review National Energy Summit, a very substantial annual occasion in the energy sector, held only the week before last, saw body after body present their key, clear view that until we have a national energy policy that makes sense in this country, this crisis is going to get worse before it gets better. The Grattan Institute, reflecting on what's happened to wholesale prices under this energy crisis, confirmed that it has resulted in $1 billion in additional windfall profits to just the big three private energy companies—an additional $1 billion in additional profits every year since this crisis took hold, paid for by Australian households and energy-using businesses. We know that there were more than a dozen—16 at our last count—attempts to land a national energy policy during the last parliament, none of which succeeded. The closest was the National Energy Guarantee. The member for Hughes is here; he wasn't a particular fan of the National Energy Guarantee, but neither was the now Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. It promised—according to the now Prime Minister, when he was the Treasurer, and the now Treasurer, when he was the energy minister—a reduction in household bills of about $550 on average. Instead, what we have seen since that coalition party room ambush is power bills go up and up and up. The Prime Minister is also seeking to convince the Australian people that all things are hunky-dory in the investment market. Yes, we had a burst of investment in renewable energy to discharge the renewable energy target that the Labor Party had put in place when we were in government. Those opposite have tried to tear it down, time and time again, particularly the now Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, who came into this parliament surfing a campaign of being anti renewable energy. But what the Prime Minister doesn't tell the Australian people is that Bloomberg, the organisation he enlists in his claim that we were leading the world in renewable energy investment, has also reported that renewable energy investment is already down 50 per cent in the first half of 2019 alone. The Clean Energy Council says that is probably a low-ball estimate. We expect thousands and thousands of jobs to be lost from this sector, which should be growing. We do support this bill, provided the amendments that I'll be moving in the third reading part of the debate are supported by the government. But we will continue to hold this government to account for its hopeless management of energy policy. 17:13 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes It is very pleasing to hear the member for Hindmarsh actually expressing his concern for the high cost of electricity prices. I would think that is the first time in the eight-odd years that I have been here that I've actually heard him express concern about the cost of electricity. Normally he was there backing his mates in South Australia, his state Labor colleagues in South Australia, who were kicked out of office a few short years ago. He should have been talking to them about the price of electricity. Or perhaps he should have been concerned about when he was part of the Labor Party government that brought in a carbon tax, which affected the wholesale price of electricity. Let's just go through what has happened to the wholesale spot price of electricity in this nation. Back in those heady days before the carbon tax, the wholesale price of electricity was $30 a megawatt in New South Wales, $30 a megawatt in South Australia, $29 a megawatt in Queensland and $27 a megawatt hour in Victoria. We then had the Labor Party introduce the carbon tax, which put 50 per cent-plus on the wholesale price of electricity. Where was Labor's concern then that we hear at the dispatch box now about the cost of electricity? There was absolute silence from them. We were told how wonderful it was. They were more concerned with implementing that tax than they were about the cost and effect it would have on Australian business and on Australian households. Thankfully, the coalition removed that dreaded carbon tax, and the wholesale price of electricity fell. In fact, in Victoria, it fell back to $35 and in South Australia it fell back to $40. We then saw, with the Labor Party cheering, the northern coal-fired power stations in South Australia taken offline and blown up because of Labor's reckless Renewable Energy Target in South Australia. It was exactly the same Renewable Energy Target that the Labor Party took to the election last year. And what has happened to the wholesale price of electricity in South Australia since 2015? Well, according to the data from the Australian Energy Market Operator, it has gone from $40 to the current year on average of $110. In five short years, it has gone from $44 to $110 a megawatt hour after they blew up the coal-fired power station. What happened in Victoria after they decided—another brilliant Labor plan—to chase Hazelwood out of town, to triple the coal royalties and to drive them out? What happened to the wholesale price of electricity in Victoria? In 2015, it was $30 a megawatt hour. This year it is running at $110 a megawatt hour, not double but more than triple. Almost four times has the wholesale price of electricity increased in Victoria. So we have learnt our lessons as a nation: this is what happens when you blow up your coal-fired power stations. We have in New South Wales a coal-fired power station, Liddell, that AGL say they want to close down and the amazing thing is they have been offered half a billion dollars for it. They have been offered $500 million for that coal-fired power station. Investors say, 'It is old. It is run down. We want to come in and refurbish it and keep it running to supply electricity into the Australian grid.' AGL have said, 'No, we don't want that half a billion dollars,' because it is worth more to them closed down than it is in the hands of a competitor. That is withdrawal of supply. That is anti-competitive conduct and it should be prohibited under our nation's competition law. I have argued long and hard with the chairman of the ACCC, Rod Sims. I said to him, 'I believe that you have an arguable case under our existing competition law to at least do some jawboning to AGL and say that is anti-competitive conduct and you will use the provision of our competition laws against it.' But he is of the opinion that our existing competition laws are not strong enough. Therefore, that is why this legislation is so important. We cannot stand back and watch a company with a very substantial degree of market power in an industry that supplies an essential service like electricity engage in anti-competitive conduct by closing down a coal-fired power station when there is an offer for half a billion dollars on the table. And that is why divesture laws for the first time in this nation's history are highly appropriate. Just quickly, I know there have been some rumblings on our side of the parliament on this; however, a divestiture provision has been in America's anti-trust laws for over 120 years. The home of free-market capitalism has had divesture powers, not just in the energy sector but across the entire economy, for 120 years. There are a couple of important points that need to be made. Divestiture is not government control or government takeover; it is simply a demerger—forcing a company with excessive market power acting in an anti-competitive way to break themselves up into several competing entities so they compete head-on with each other. If one company owned the Liddell coal-fired power station they would not close it down and knock back an offer for $500 million. It only makes sense because they can recoup that loss with higher wholesale prices in the market, like what we have seen happen in South Australia and Victoria. That is what this legislation is about. I will provide a lesson from history. Over 100 years ago, the Standard Oil Company was broken up and ordered to divest by the US Federal Court. They were forced to divest into 34 separate companies. As a shareholder, for every share that you had in Standard Oil, you were given one share each in 34 new companies—and very quickly the sum of the parts was greater than the whole. So history tells us that shareholders do not lose when there is a divestiture order in place. I will leave my comments there. I know that many of my colleagues want to speak on this important legislation, and we want to get it passed through this House post haste. I thank the House. 17:21 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments have been in office for 6½ years and, for 6½ years, the country has not had a national energy policy. We heard the member far Hughes rail against the previous policies that were put in place by the Labor government. But then the Liberal-National coalition got elected and, for six years, they have had no policy. That has meant that there has been uncertainty in assets that are predominantly owned by the private sector throughout this country. That uncertainty has meant that they haven't invested in new generation capacity, particularly in certain markets throughout the country. That's led, of course, to a reduction in supply and energy prices have been pushed up. For six years, the government have dilly-dallied and done nothing—and this bill is their answer to those six years of inaction. This rather childishly named bill will not end the energy market crisis in Australia. It won't reduce electricity prices, because it doesn't encourage bringing on additional supply. It doesn't encourage fixing up the problems with the national electricity market, the problems with transmission and the problems with the distribution market—taking into consideration the fact that many Australians are now going on their own and investing in their own renewable energy with rooftop solar, batteries and the like. It certainly won't reduce carbon emissions. We all know that, under this government, carbon emissions have been increasing again—a problem that will ensure that our kids will have to pay for the damage that's done by this government's inaction on that issue. It won't boost investment in cleaner renewable energy. It won't modernise our electricity market and the rules associated with the generation, transmission and sale of electricity in Australia. It won't even end the war on climate change that's been going on in the coalition for well over a decade now, which has seen 16 different policies on energy in this country, brought by this government to the party room or this parliament, knocked off by the likes of the member for Hughes. When they finally got an energy policy up, in the National Energy Guarantee, they didn't knock off the policy; they knocked off the Prime Minister. They got rid of Malcolm Turnbull, because they didn't like what he was doing with the National Energy Guarantee. All the while, Australians have paid the price. They have paid the price with skyrocketing electricity prices, and businesses have paid the price with skyrocketing gas prices, and carbon emissions in this country have begun increasing again. That is rather shallow and rather sad. It is sad because we've had a decade of stalled action on climate change in this country, because of the likes of the member for Hughes and a handful of people who don't believe in climate change and have held this government, the Australian people and progress on this issue in our country to ransom. This piece of legislation is a fig leaf. It's a rather shallow piece of legislation that has come about because they can't mention carbon emissions in any piece of legislation or work that's done on that side of the parliament. If they mention the words 'carbon emissions', then the likes of the member for Hughes and others in this parliament who don't believe in climate change get their backs up and say, 'You're talking about a carbon tax.' Consequently, anything that's even looked like proposing reductions in emissions in Australia as an energy policy has been knocked off by those opposite. That's sad for the country, because it has stalled action on climate change over the last decade. It's also, more importantly, sad for our children, because they are the ones who will pay the price for this government's inaction on climate change. They are the ones who will have to clean up the mess in future generations, and the cost will be much greater. That's why a million people marched in the streets of Australia a month ago and why students went on strike from school. Even a 16-year-old child understands that climate change is real and that, unless we reduce emissions in this country and take real action on climate change, they are the ones who are going to pay the price for it. As many of the posters that were displayed at the marches said, 'There is no planet B.' There is no other option when it comes to climate change; we either deal with it now or pay the price in the future. This notion of what the government call the 'big stick' legislation—that's what it's come to; a big stick. That's what they go around saying: 'We are going to wield a big stick with the energy companies.' How infantile! How childish this government have become if that is their answer to energy policy in this country, to tackling climate change and reducing emissions. This is the second iteration of this bill. The government tried to introduce this divestiture legislation in the last parliament. It didn't come from a report. It certainly didn't come from the business community. The ACCC didn't support it when it was originally introduced, and the Labor Party opposed it as well as many of the crossbenchers. Consequently, they weren't going to get it through the parliament. So they backed off and dropped the legislation before the last election. They have come back with this piece of legislation. Thankfully, they have listened to some of the criticisms that were levelled by industry, the Labor Party and others, and they have changed this bill. The original bill proposed that unless energy producers, wholesale suppliers of electricity, met a base market price for the sale of electricity, the government could come in and divest them of those assets. We heard the member for Hughes talk about divesture of a particular power station in New South Wales. What sort of message does that send to international investors and people looking to invest in new energy assets and new energy generation throughout the country—that, if you don't meet a certain price, the government's just going to come in and take those assets? What group of shareholders is going to agree to invest in a scheme like that? That is what this government—believe it or not, a Liberal government that supposedly believes in free markets—was proposing as its answer to the energy crisis in Australia. That was it—nothing more. That was it: 'We'll just come in and take your assets.' The government has dealt with some of the reservations by introducing a different bill into the parliament which makes improvements, particularly in relation to privatisation, and Labor will fight for important improvements to the government's big stick to protect workers and rule out any possibility of partial privatisation. But we remain sceptical that this bill will reduce power prices—in fact, I'm certain it won't. That's why we've also proposed to review this bill before it sunsets. It has a sunset provision, and we believe it should be reviewed by an independent body to see whether it actually worked—whether it actually did anything in reducing power prices. The government has presented no evidence, no analysis and no modelling to support this claim that this will work. But we all know that power prices have skyrocketed under this government because they can't get their act together to develop an energy policy after six years. It's shameful. Labor has said that we will support this bill, conditional upon the government supporting our improved amendments that I mentioned earlier in respect of privatisation. Those outstanding issues will be examined as part of a Senate inquiry. Since 2015, under this government, gas prices have tripled and wholesale power prices across the national energy market have increased by 158 per cent, smashing household budgets and jeopardising tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The lack of a policy on this issue, on energy, has been cited by the Finkel review, by the Australian Energy Market Operator, by the Energy Security Board and by industry and infrastructure Australia as the reason why we've had costs going up. Just recently we heard from the former Prime Minister himself, Malcolm Turnbull. He stated that the energy crisis would continue under the Morrison government. You can't get a better arbiter or more informed opinion on this than the former Prime Minister, because he knows the damage that people like the member for Hughes, who just spoke before me, have done when it comes to this debate in this country. The Liberals are simply incapable of delivering a policy that takes account of carbon emissions. That's the view of former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. If they were serious about ending the energy crisis, the government would bring back to this parliament the National Energy Guarantee. Remember that, the NEG? That was the one that the former Prime Minister and the Treasurer supported at some stage. They said it would bring down power prices by an average of $550, according to the government's own modelling. But instead, what do we get? We get the big stick and that's it. No vision, no guiding principles, no policy coherence. We've got attempts to keep increasing the unreliable and economically unviable ageing coal-fired plants open, rather than policy to support them with clean, affordable and renewable power. The member for Hughes mentioned the power station in New South Wales that he wants to keep open. The reason AGL are closing that power station is that it's run its natural life. It's like a motor vehicle that was produced in the 1970s that is now not roadworthy, the maintenance costs are too high to keep it running, it's dirty, it's polluting and it doesn't make any sense to run it on the road anymore. Australians make decisions like that—to retire capital that's run its useful life—in businesses and in their personal lives on a daily basis. But the member for Hughes, because he doesn't believe in climate change and thinks that we should still be burning coal to produce electricity in this country, wants to keep assets like that open. He says that if the company doesn't want to sell that particular asset to someone and use that land for another investment—which they are well within their rights to do, as anyone in the private sector in this country should be able to—and replace it with a new asset that is more environmentally friendly, is cleaner and will produce cheaper power into the future, that's no good. He says the government should be able to come in and say: 'No, we don't appreciate that. We'll take that asset off you.' This isn't Soviet Russia. This isn't some sort of dictatorship where governments come in and seize assets. We have this bill called 'the big stick'. As I mentioned earlier, there have been some amendments made to it. The worst aspects of the original bill have been addressed, largely because of the concerns raised by the Labor Party and by industry. While the original bill risked the privatisation of electricity assets, this bill ensures that any government owned assets that are divested must remain in public hands. There is also a central role to be played by the courts and, importantly, the ACCC regarding divestiture. In the previous bill, there was a power for the minister to divest a company of assets after going through a process. But in this case there is a role for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to recommend that and a role for the courts to be involved. Whilst it's not a deal, it's much more sensible legislation than what was proposed initially. As I mentioned earlier, it won't solve the government's ongoing energy crisis. While our biggest concerns have been mitigated, we acknowledge that some industries still have worries about the unintended consequences of this bill for investment certainty. If you're trying to encourage people to invest in this country in the supply of additional power, particularly renewable energy that is cleaner, that provides jobs in the future and that caters for the fact that we have to reduce our carbon emissions over time, then this ain't the way to be doing it—to say to those investors that, if you don't produce power at a particular price, then we'll just take those assets off you. That is what this government is proposing. That is their approach to national energy policy. They are so shallow and so wracked by infighting and division around this issue of whether or not climate change is real—and the fact that you can't mention carbon emissions in anything that this government proposes—that that is the state we got ourselves into. That is the reason power prices are increasing. That is the reason gas prices are increasing. That is the reason emissions are going up. That is why our kids' future looks bleak under this Morrison government. 17:37 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Pollution has gone up under this government. Despite all the rhetoric, despite the pretense now, the new strategy from the government is no longer to overtly deny that climate change exists. The new strategy is to say, 'Oh, we accept it, but don't worry; we have everything under control.' Pollution is going up year on year on year. In the time of a climate emergency, where we are being told that the Paris commitments are not good enough and that we need to do three to five times as much by 2030 if we are to have any chance of stopping dangerous global warming, pollution as going up and up and up under this government. No amount of spin can hide that. Pollution is going up. Part of the reason is that the climate denialists on the backbench have now finessed their talking points. They are dictating what the front bench does, and the climate denialists on the front bench are dictating what the cabinet and the Prime Minister do. So we have no coherent policy to cut pollution, because pollution is going up and up. Even if we ignore the dodgy accounting tricks from the government—the dodgy accounting tricks that no-one else in the world is using—and even if we ignore the fact that we found out at Senate estimates that, when the Prime Minister says, 'We are going to account for every tonne,' most of it is from stickers on fridges and technological solutions that haven't been invented yet, it is becoming rapidly more apparent by the day that they have no plan. Even if you ignore all of that for a moment and accept that the government is going to meet its paltry targets, that is not enough. We've been told that, and Prime Minister would have found that out, had he bothered to go to the UN climate crisis summit. We are not on track to stop dangerous global warming, and this government does not have global warming under control. Farmers who are living through record drought know that this government doesn't have global warming under control. People who live in towns where they are being told to expect water to be trucked in because they might run out of it know the government doesn't have global warming under control. The 400,000 signatories to the largest-ever electronic petition in this place know that the government doesn't have global warming under control, and they want it to declare a climate emergency. The people from all walks of life who are marching in the street know that the government doesn't have global warming under control. What they are all begging for from this government is a plan to bring down pollution and address the crisis in global warming and the climate emergency, but also address the crisis in the energy system, which the government has broken. Because of the government's intervention in the energy system, it's worth noting one fact: this comes from the government's independent Australian Energy Regulator; not from the Greens, not from the commentators but from the Energy Regulator. Power bills are now higher under this government than when the carbon price was in place. People are paying more for power under the government. Their electricity bills are higher than they were when the carbon tax was in place and we were reducing emissions. It takes quite a feat to make electricity more expensive than when the carbon price was in place and increase emissions, but the government has done that. Why? Because it has had, as its sole aim, to stop the growth in renewable energy and to stop the phase-out of coal. We need to phase out coal and replace it with renewable energy if we're to have any hope of stopping global warming. What the scientists told us last year is that the world would need to be two-thirds out of coal, on average, by 2030 to have a chance of staying below 1½ degrees. That means that about 10 of the coal-fired power stations on the eastern seaboard would need to close and be replaced with renewable energy—basically, about one a year between now and 2030. That's what we've been told, and that's the policy that needs to be implemented if the government wants to stop dangerous global warming and keep us below the Paris Agreement targets. To do that, you'd need some legislation that says, 'Let's work out a way of pulling out coal, pushing in renewables and doing it all in an orderly fashion so that we can bring down pollution, bring down power prices and keep the lights on.' That is doable, if that's what you want to do. But the government wants to actually do the opposite. The government's sole intention is to stop coal-fired power stations from closing and stop new renewables from coming online, and this bill is part of that. You would expect it from a climate denying government. You would expect a bill like this from a climate denying government because they want to send, and continue to send, a shiver of uncertainty through the energy industry so that people don't have the confidence to bring on the new renewables, which are now cheaper because the fuel is free and the technology is now advanced enough that they are now cheaper. To stop even the basic law of economics applying, the government comes up with a big stick, and it's a big stick that is aimed squarely at the renewable energy industry and squarely at keeping coal-fired power stations open. The government's aim is to make the whole energy sector so uncertain that it keeps coal there for longer and keeps renewables out for longer. Interestingly, the cat has just been belled in the last few contributions from both the opposition side and the government side, because it's clear that what they want to do is use this legislation to stop companies like AGL, who have said that they want to retire some of their old coal-fired power. They have said that they want to replace an ageing old power station—and, if you haven't been there, you should go and have a look at it, because it is being held together with sticky tape and string—with a mix that includes renewables. The government said, 'No, we don't want it,' and the government said, 'What are the weapons that we can use to stop you doing it?' They set up a taskforce and they hounded out the CEO. Then they set up a taskforce to oversee it, and now they've got this legislation as well. The Liberals and Labor admit that this legislation is in part about keeping coal-fired power in the system for longer, including Liddell. The last speaker just gave a very eloquent speech against the bill, because it is a bill that is being put forward by a climate denying government that wants to keep coal in for longer and keep renewables out for longer. Why would you help the government pass this bill that is only going to make global warming worse, make it harder to bring more renewables into the system for longer and make it easier to keep coal in the system for longer? The government has said it wants this legislation so that it can keep Liddell open for longer, even as the company is trying to close it. The government even said before that they want this legislation so that they can go and reorganise the Queensland energy sector. They have been explicit about what they want this for. Yes, it is good if there has been some change around privatisation. That is something we raised before and we're hopeful that there'll be some safeguards here, but we're not that optimistic. But absolutely nothing has been done in any of the amendments negotiated that deal with the question of keeping coal-fired power stations, like Liddell, in the system for longer, and that is because—and I repeat this—the last contributors from both sides of the chamber have just said that this bill is in part about making sure that coal-fired power stations, like Liddell, stay there for longer. If we have legislation that does that, we can kiss goodbye to stopping dangerous global warming because, as I said, we need to be pulling them out at a rate of about one a year and replacing them with renewables between now and 2030. If, instead, the net contribution of the Liberals, with Labor's support, is to put in place legislation that allows the minister to wave a big stick over the Liddell Power Station and the company that owns it and say, 'You'd better keep this running for longer,' we will have made it much less likely that we stop dangerous global warming and that Australia contributes to it fairly. We will have just given a climate-denying minister a big stick to keep coal in the system for longer. The Greens will stand up to this climate-denying government, but we're getting a bit sick of having to do it by ourselves and of watching the opposition time and time again say to the government, 'Just tell us what you want and we'll give it to you.' We've seen it on free trade deals that give corporations more rights than workers and government. We saw it when Labor supported the Liberals to rip $4 billion out of public education. We saw it when Labor supported the Liberals to give tax cuts to millionaires. And now we're seeing it on climate change legislation as well. There's no point in bipartisanship if that bipartisanship makes global warming worse. For legislation, we need to look no further than what the members on the government side have said they want it for—they want it to keep coal in the system for longer, and that is what it is going to help them do. When it gets to the committee stage, I'll be moving amendments to fix this legislation, and I hope those amendments get support. The first thing that we need to do is move amendments to say: in the time of a climate emergency, we should not be using public money to keep coal-fired power stations open for longer or, heaven forbid, build new ones. Public money should be going to schools and hospitals and making dental care available to everyone. It shouldn't be going to keep coal-fired power stations open for longer. This government has done everything it can to make global warming worse. Farmers know that there's a link between the drought that they're experiencing and climate change. Every extra tonne of coal that this government burns sends another farmer to the wall. This government owes the farmers of Australia an apology. And, if they then add insult upon injury by saying, 'And, in fact, we're going to take your taxes and use them to make global warming worse by having more coal-fired power stations,' they should be indicted for that behaviour because it is a climate crime to use public money to make global warming worse. So I'll be moving an amendment to stop the government from giving one red cent of public funds to coal-fired power stations. That should be something that everyone in this place can support because putting money into building new coal-fired power stations or keeping existing ones open for longer is not something we should even be countenancing at the moment. The second set of amendments deals with the issue that now Labor and the Liberals have both accepted as a purpose of this bill—that is, to deal with the situation where some companies have said, 'Actually, we wanna do the right thing and start replacing our coal with renewables.' The amendment that I will move will say that if there's a planned closure of a coal-fired power station, nothing in this bill can apply to it; the orders in this bill can't apply to it. That would give some certainty and some reassurance to places like Liddell that AGL operate, that they could continue to close in a quick and orderly fashion and replace with a mix that includes renewables without the government having a big stick hanging over them. If we're in the business, as Labor seems to be now, of working with the government and letting them pass climate-denying legislation with the hope of getting a few amendments on the side then let's put this in the mix as well. Let's make it crystal clear that this won't stand in the way of Liddell closing, that Liddell can close and that other power stations can close and that this legislation won't be used as a barrier to it. Otherwise, we have the climate-denying government, aided and abetted by the opposition, passing laws that can keep coal in the system for longer. I will repeat something that was said several times this week and that we're getting sick of saying: this government have only got a one-seat majority. They had to pretend to believe in climate change in order to get elected. They lost a member on the basis of climate change. They're out there pretending that they're going to take action. There will be a by-election during this parliament because there always is. This government could fall during this parliament. What we need to do is take the fight up to them on climate change, on energy, on tax and on education, not keep doing deals with them that help them improve themselves in the public standing, pass their agenda and implement their agenda to the detriment of the Australian people. It is time that we stood up to them. The Greens will stand up to this government. And, geez, it would be nice if at some point the opposition would join us in opposing this government's destructive agenda. 17:52 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler It's always a great pleasure to follow on from the member for Melbourne. I really think he's missing the point because the point here is about getting the cost of electricity down for consumers and business. That is what matters to those individuals. It never ceases to amaze me that we have individuals like the member for Melbourne who think they're design engineers for our electricity generators, our transmission networks, our distribution systems. I would suggest to the member for Melbourne: do you really want to be out there designing under-river tunnels? Do you want to design a high-rise building? How about a 200,000 tonne ship? Would you like to put your family across a bridge that you have designed? Yet we continue to have individuals in this place, like the member for Melbourne, who think they can design the most critical piece of infrastructure for this nation and its prosperity. I think they should take some advice, those individuals, from people who do this for a living. And I can tell you, I'm very happy to compare resumes with the member for Melbourne any time he is ready. The reality is even I wouldn't put myself up as a transmission design engineer. It is an incredibly complex role that takes years and years, decades in fact, to achieve the point where you can design, develop and deliver that type of infrastructure network. This big-stick legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019, is about one and thing only—that is, getting electricity prices in this country down and taking action, particularly against gentailers, and, in one case, the Queensland Labor government, which is robbing consumers. It is taking margins that are astronomical. We only have to go to a report in Queensland's TheCourier-Mail on 2 October 2019, which said: 'State-owned energy companies poured $1.5 billion of profits into the state Labor government's coffers last financial year but the dividend bonanza did not stop spiralling debt.' This was a recommendation from the ACCC in its review. It was a recommendation particularly aimed at the Queensland Labor government, the gaming of the system and the wholesale generation system in the NEM. They have now produced a $1.5 billion profit from all of the networks and generating assets that they own. I say again to the member for Melbourne: this is about getting down the price of energy for consumers, for seniors, for people who want to be in business, for those who might want to run a refrigeration plant like a butcher, for a foundry. I have any number of examples here from small business through to big business. I met with Shane Roberts, the owner of Pacific Coffee in Bundaberg, earlier this year, along with Minister Angus Taylor. The top three costs for his business are now wages, commercial rent and electricity. He had to invest nearly $40,000 to change his air conditioning over to try to bring down that monthly bill, because it is completely out of hand. There is a foundry in Bundaberg, Walkers, which has been in place for more than 130 years—130 years for a heavy industry in my region. Their electricity prices have more than doubled since 2008. Enio Troiani, the manager there, told us at the start of the year that their annual power bill will climb from $1 million to $1.7 million a year—$700,000. If anybody out there thinks that these types of business have $700,000 hidden away in their bottom line that they can throw at increasing electricity costs, they've got rocks in their heads. Walkers pay 28c a kilowatt hour for electricity. That is expected to rise to 48c from next year because of new demand tariffs from the Queensland Labor government. A free audit provided by the state government in Queensland failed to find a cheaper solution. Do you know what they suggested, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews? They suggested Walkers get diesel generators—diesel generators to replace what has been an efficient, reliable network on the riverside, in the middle of town. This is what it has come to. What hypocrisy from the Queensland state Labor government! It is outrageous. According to the Bundaberg Regional Irrigators Group, energy costs have increased steadily since 1985 but rose sharply between 2007 and 2015. Their research shows there was about an 80 per cent increase in those eight years alone. This is simply unsustainable. It is unsustainable. I'd say to idealists like the member for Melbourne: get off your high horse and get out and talk to people who are not earning a large salary like the member and others in this House—the ones who struggle to pay their bill every single month or every single quarter because they simply cannot pay. This bill is about ensuring we have something we can throw at those idealists and the Queensland Labor government if they do not want to play ball. If they don't want to put down the price of energy for the people that we represent, we have the opportunity with big-stick legislation to make sure we bust up those energy companies and provide competition. It won't be privatised; it's more GOCs. In fact, it's the exact position that Queensland used to have not that long ago. It's the Queensland Labor government which has combined all those assets, taken away competition, driven up prices and continued to rob $1½ billion from consumers. I say it again: this bill is about getting electricity prices down. It is tough but necessary legislation, and I absolutely commend Minister Angus Taylor for putting it forward. If the Labor Party are supporting it, I will certainly support what they are doing. This is critical for our nation. It is critical for business, moving forward. We have to ensure we maintain industry in this country, and industry needs to be competitive on energy prices. 17:57 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise this evening to make a contribution to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019. This is a bill that lapsed at the end of the last parliament. It gives the government a raft of new powers, including, in the case of extreme misconduct, the ability to force an electricity company to divest assets. Labor opposed the first version of this legislation, which left the door wide open to privatisation of state owned generators and lacked the checks and balances that are fundamental to such intrusive state powers. Since then, the government has made some substantive changes, and the bill before us addresses the most serious deficiencies in the bill that we saw in the 45th Parliament. For this reason, Labor won't be opposing it today, although we do have some substantive amendments. However, this is far from the main issue when it comes to electricity and this government. The real issue here is that the legislation is little more than a transparent attempt at distraction from the fact that this government has simply failed to do its job. This government's belligerent refusal to do anything about ballooning electricity prices is absolutely shameful, and now, in a tacit admission of its own powerlessness, it is resorting to threats, intimidation and bluster in the hope that no-one will notice it's not in control. Indeed, this bill is a humiliating admission by the Liberals that they have colossally failed to deliver clean, reliable and affordable power—not only that, but the government has also tried to set fire to all of the existing policies Australia had to reduce emissions and encourage the production of cheap, clean electricity. The government thinks that these powers will reduce electricity prices. Labor is deeply sceptical that this will be the case. This bill certainly won't do anything to fix the serious energy crisis facing this country that the government itself has created. When it comes to energy policy, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has demonstrated time and again that it's pathologically incapable of delivering the leadership that this country so desperately deserves and needs. Energy is a fundamental element of every economy. It plays a huge role in the competitiveness of business and contributes significantly to the cost of living for citizens. As the single highest-emitting sector, it will be fundamental to slashing pollution and meeting our international climate obligations. But after proposing and then knocking off 16 different energy policies—that's right; 16—not to mention two leaders, the government has crawled to a standstill on this vital policy area. The truth is that, at the end of day, Mr Morrison has utterly given up on advancing the national interests, in favour of saving his own job. Make no mistake: responsibility for ballooning electricity bills lies squarely at the feet of this government. Australia has bountiful natural energy advantages. With the right energy policy, we should be able to attract investment, create jobs and drive down emissions—and all of us will benefit from clean, reliable and affordable power. But this government has gone to civil war with itself, ensuring that this will never happen under its watch. Australia is now in the midst of a full blown energy crisis, thanks to the inability of successive Liberal Prime Ministers to listen to the experts and stand up to the anti-science knuckle-draggers in its party rooms—the very people who, for some unfathomable reason, seem to call the shots when it comes to energy policy. Over the last six years, this government has had no less than 16 policies—I repeat: 16—and not one of them got approval from the rabid right to get past the starting blocks. As a result, we are now seeing rising emissions, shrinking competitiveness, ballooning energy prices and an unwillingness from business to invest until government delivers policy certainty. Wholesale power prices have climbed 158 per cent since 2015. Business is hurting, household budgets are getting smashed and, tragically, millions of Australians are still struggling to keep the lights on. Indeed, households are having their electricity disconnected at an alarming rate, because they can't keep up with the spiralling costs. Of course, it's the most vulnerable people—the very people already under siege from this government's savage agenda—who are getting hit the hardest. Last week, in Anti-Poverty Week, St Vincent de Paul put out an important report looking at household electricity disconnections across the country. It gave a stark picture of just how bad things have got. It showed that, far from being an anomaly, disconnections are commonplace. In my community the figures are shocking. I would like to read some out today. In postcode 2300, which takes in the inner-city suburbs of Newcastle, Cooks Hill, Bar Beach, Newcastle East and The Hill, a staggering 6.4 per cent of households had their electricity disconnected between July 2015 and June 2018. Newcastle West residents did not fare much better, with 5.99 per cent of accounts being disconnected. Hamilton, which is home to a large number of extremely vulnerable people living in public housing, wasn't far behind, with 5.93 per cent of all accounts disconnected. Indeed, out of every single populated postcode in my electorate, the very lowest disconnection rate was 2.4 per cent of households. That is thousands of households across Newcastle. This is appalling! This government has abandoned the most vulnerable people in the country and left a policy void the size of the planet, just so it can appease the climate change deniers that populate its own party room. Yet again, the government has chosen personal interest over the national interest. This government needs to stop its childish factional bickering, get over its aversion to science and deliver an energy policy that will drive investment, create jobs, bring down carbon emissions and cut electricity prices. Clearly, this bill won't end the Liberals' energy crisis. It will do absolutely nothing to address the fundamental problem: the government needs to deliver an energy policy which gives certainty and supports investment in clean, reliable and affordable energy. As we've seen in recent years, energy for the Liberals isn't so much a sector as a means of tearing down leaders. Malcolm Turnbull tore down Tony Abbott for his failure to do anything, only to find himself torn down for hinting he might want to do something. Now Scott Morrison knows the lay of the land, and he's doing exactly what he needs to do in order to keep his job, and that is nothing. What a sorry state of affairs. The narrative around energy that you hear from those opposite is unlike anything you'll find outside right-wing conspiracy blocs. In the real world, everybody understands that we must be charting a path towards a decarbonised economy. Beyond this House, people understand that government needs to provide policy certainty for business to invest. Outside of this place, experts agree that we should be setting the policy levers to encourage investment in the cheapest form of energy, and that is renewables. Sadly, the rest of the world understands that we have a limited time frame for action. And yet, when I step into this chamber, I get transported into a parallel universe—an alternative reality where the planet is not getting hotter, where business doesn't need certainty, where renewable energy is the devil and nuclear energy is a viable way forward. But, unlike the fairytales those opposite tell themselves, the reality is that they've sent Australia down a path of higher pollution, more expensive energy costs and reduced competitiveness for business. As I mentioned earlier, we've seen wholesale power prices climb by 158 per cent since 2015. Emissions are on a relentless path upwards. Businesses are losing contracts to overseas competition. Households are struggling to keep their heads above water. Consumers are closing their wallets at the very time we are seeing growth slow to a crawl. And, of course, just like the member for Wentworth before him, Mr Morrison is far more focused on keeping his own job than developing a responsible energy policy in the national interest. So, here we are. We have a government that's brazenly abandoned any plan for either energy prices or climate change. We have a government that has created a policy void the size of a planet. And we have another leader so desperate to keep his job that he won't even try to stand up to the knuckle-draggers on the government benches that have so damaged this country with their refusal to accept the science. Now the government has backed itself into a corner, with its only remaining option being to shake a big stick at electricity companies. As I've outlined, this is the second version of this bill. The first one was originally developed in response to an ACCC electricity pricing review. It gave government broad powers to insert itself into private energy businesses. This included the power to force companies to divest their assets—importantly, something that was never recommended in the review. Thankfully, the first version of this bill never came to a vote. I suspect that is because there was a very real chance the unthinkable would happen, and that is that the government would lose on the floor of parliament. While this isn't a bill Labor would have drafted, we can see that the most objectionable elements of the former bill have been removed. Indeed, Labor was very concerned that the provisions in the former bill would have allowed divestment orders to be used to transfer state-owned generation assets to a private operator. It's no secret that privatisation of the electricity sector has hurt our country. Before privatisation, Australia had some of the lowest electricity prices in the world. They had been dropping for years. Nonetheless, since the 1990s Australians have been told splitting and privatising electricity functions would deliver more competitive organisations and cheaper power. Well, of course, this hasn't happened. Prices ballooned by 170 per cent from 1995 to 2012. This is four times the CPI growth. When the McKell Institute looked into the issue, it found that the private networks underperformed their public counterparts and had higher overheads. The Australia Institute also found that private electricity networks had reduced work output and higher staffing costs, particularly in management levels. This is why it's so important that the government removes privatisation in the version of the bill before us today. There are other substantive changes, too, including a much greater role for the ACCC and Federal Court to provide oversight and advice on the exercising of these new powers. This is important. It is always preferable for an independent expert body to be overseeing these decision, ensuring that they can't be used intemperately for political ends. Again, this isn't a bill that Labor would have delivered. Indeed, we would have focused on delivering the coherent, coordinated, national energy plan that all the experts agree this country needs. That being said, we are not on the government benches and we accept that some changes have been made to remove the worst elements of the former legislation. However, while we're glad the government has explicitly ruled out full privatisation, we're still concerned at the potential for part privatisation. That is why we will be moving an amendment that will guarantee this cannot happen. We will also move another substantial amendment to ensure that workers' rights are maintained in the event of divestment. However, we're still worried about unintended consequences. For this reason, we're moving amendments that will mandate a review of the operations of the bill. In summary, while this bill is not as odious as the one the government brought before this place in the last parliament, it will do nothing to address the real issue, which is the government's egregious and belligerent refusal to do its job on energy policy. 18:12 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I must say that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019 is a very welcome and long-awaited piece of legislation. It addresses market misbehaviour in the electricity market that has been evident for some time to insiders and economists who understand the complexities of the market, well before the ACCC inquiry into electricity pricing. That inquiry confirmed what a lot of people understood already, but the average family and the average small business have just suffered increasing energy bills. They have all known that something is badly wrong with our energy system and wanted a better deal. There are several drivers of our high-cost electricity system, which previously was a very cheap and abundant commodity that has been delivered reliably for decades. The ACCC report identifies market misbehaviour in both the wholesale and the retail markets, as well as in the contract markets. The ACCC identified that retailers have been confusing customers with myriad deals and attendant discounts, but the discounts were based on excessively high standing offers. You can always offer a big healthy discount if the base price at which you're starting your standing offer is very high. We have already addressed this by implementing the default market offers and reference prices, which have delivered transparency and made it easier for people to compare. This system came into force on 1 July. There are other things that the ACCC report identified, like withdrawal of generating supply, save, for example, scheduled maintenance. If you take out one of your generators at a time of high demand, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out that that will deliver a higher price for the generating company, if they only have to operate half the amount of supply, and they short the market. It also gives them an avenue to fill the missing electricity from some of their other assets, like renewables. They not only get a payment for the electricity—and the price is higher—but also are able to access renewable energy certificate prices. The bill that people pay for electricity comprises many components; I might just put it on the record for my consumers and constituents in the Lyne electorate. The bill one pays includes a cost that the retailer assembles from, namely, the cost of the generation; the cost of the poles and wires; the retailer's costs themselves; and the cost of the renewable energy certificates. I might add—and it is not related to this legislation—that the Renewable Energy Target mandates that retailers have to have certificates to prove that they have sold enough electricity. Some of these retailers are also businesses that run generation; they run power stations, wind farms, coal-fired power stations or solar farms. They also run the retail end of the price that you pay. Some of these gentailers in states like Queensland and South Australia have got, essentially, the dominant share of the market, and they can access a pay point at each of those three parts of the deal. In those states, where they basically have control of the market, they are able to restrict in the contract markets to prevent other retailers of smaller size from entering their market. This bill will amend the Competition and Consumer Act to define energy market misconduct and what is prohibited, and provide a series of graduated and targeted remedies. It will define a retail pricing prohibition, focused on conduct by retailers where they fail to reasonably pass sustained and substantial electricity supply chain cost savings to their end consumers. It also defines and creates a contract liquidity prohibition to prevent energy companies from withholding hedge contracts for the purposes of substantially lessening competition. It also creates a wholesale conduct prohibition to stop generators from manipulating the spot market, such as by withholding supply. The graduated series of remedies can start with infringement notices, or contracting orders that the ACCC demands, through to court-ordered civil penalties which are financial—and they are very considerable. In that system the greatest penalty would be a $10 million fine, or three times the value of the total benefit attributed to the misconduct, or 10 per cent of the annual turnover of the corporation in the 12 months before the conduct occurred. The Treasurer can issue contracting orders upon the recommendation of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. That will permit the Treasurer to make the corporations provide their generating assets and electricity contracts in the contracting space, so that we will have more retailers entering these markets. Finally, I turn to the divestment part of this legislation. As you probably appreciate, the EU has divestment powers during mergers and acquisitions, and Australia does have divestment powers—usually in the acquisitions space, or where there's substantial lessening of competition—but in the electricity market, at this juncture, until we get this legislation through, we won't have those as a threat for profound and prolonged abuse of the market, and that is the so-called big stick. Without this sort of sword of Damocles hanging over gentailers, we won't be able to effectively stop this misbehaviour. The legislation requires both the ACCC and the Treasurer to be certain that misbehaviour has been genuinely proved and continues. The divestiture orders can order the company to break up its assets, but the conduct can't just be a one-off; it has to be fraudulent, dishonest and in bad faith, and it has to be proven, before the court, to have been done for the purpose of distorting or manipulating prices, and the order has to be proportionate and targeted to the conduct. The legislation will apply also to government owned enterprises, but we have seen and we have noticed incredible increases in the charges in Queensland, where the dominant suppliers and retailers are government owned entities. The legislation does have a sunset clause out to 2025, and there are extra powers, increased information-gathering powers, for the ACCC, for monitoring, so that orders can be justified by facts. I think the legislation will improve behaviour in the market. There are many other causes of increased costs, and some are not bound up in this legislation, but this legislation will address some of the most egregious market misconduct. As I mentioned, there are other initiatives that we've already brought in to correct the system. These include the default market offer and reference pricing. We've got the Retailer Reliability Obligation in place. We are also working on other things to improve the security of the electricity system. So, in essence, this is a very important piece of legislation. Cheap, affordable, reliable electricity is like water for an economy. People can't survive without water. Economies that are industrialised, and the modern world, can't survive without cheap, abundant, available electricity. Otherwise, we would lose all our industrial capacity, all our value-adding capacity, whether in the processing of food or minerals, and all the accoutrements of modern everyday life—from your mobile phone to your iPad, to your house, to your car, to roads—are manufactured with energy. So the sooner we can get back to having affordable, reliable electricity, the sooner all of those sections of our economy, as well as small businesses and families, will be much better off. I commend this bill to the House. 18:24 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I speak with considerable authority in this area. I was the Minister for Mines and Energy in Queensland. We had the cheapest electricity in the world. The proof of that was that the announced aluminium processing plants for Canada—and Canada, arguably, before us, had the cheapest energy in the world—decided not to go to Canada to use their hydroelectric power but to come to Queensland to use our power. The reason we had the cheapest electricity in the world, and why we were always accused of being the biggest socialist government in Australian history—looking back on it, if you define that as government ownership, I suppose we were, but you most certainly wouldn't use that word to describe the ALP; they were the ones who sold everything off—was that we had a policy of delivering to the people and industries of Queensland the cheapest electricity in the world. I pay great tribute to Sir Leo Hielscher, as well as to the late Ron Camm and the late Joh Bjelke-Petersen. They negotiated that if you wanted to mine coal in Queensland then you gave one per cent to us. It is called reserve resource policy. It used to be the policy of the old Labor governments, but today the Labor Party represents the exact opposite point of view; they believe in screwing everyone to get the money off them. We believed in taking one per cent of the coal as a reserved resource. That's for the people of Queensland. Would to heaven that someone in this place had had the brains to do that with the gas industry—$36 billion coming into the Australian economy and boomeranging straight out again, because the collective wisdom and brains of this place sold it for 6c a unit; we Australians now have to buy it back at $16 a unit. The cost of producing electricity is based upon three components. One is coal. We had the coal for free in Queensland. Two is labour costs. We built the biggest power station in the world, Gladstone: 1450 megawatts of power. It had exactly the same manning levels as tiny little Collinsville. Collinsville was producing 180 megawatts; Gladstone was producing 1450 megawatts. The labour costs were negligible. The repayment costs on the construction were very sizable indeed, but over a 17- or 18-year period we had paid off the debt on the power station, so there was no cost for debt servicing. There was no cost for the coal; under the reserve resource policy it was free. The only cost was the power station workers, who were on more money than a member of parliament. The workers were getting an extremely good deal under the much-maligned Bjelke-Petersen government. But we delivered the cheapest electricity charges in the world, because we were not worried about this free market rubbish; we were out there to make a quid. Unlike in this place, we were all from business, farming and aspirational backgrounds. A lot of us were workers, but we were workers out there to make a quid and get ahead in life. That's the difference between our government and every government in Australia in the last 25 to 30 years. They don't comprise anyone who fits into that category. We had the cheapest electricity charges in the world. Shane Knuth, state member for the KAP, the political party I belong to, constantly quotes Peter Beattie, who said, 'When we open the electricity industry up to competition, electricity prices will go down.' Australia has very accurate graphs for Victoria, Queensland and South Australia, and all of those graphs are flat lines up until 1999, then suddenly in the year 2003 the graphs are almost vertical. The price goes straight through the roof. The price in Queensland was $670 per household for 11 straight years from 1988 to 1999; after 2003 the price shoots through the roof and it's $2,400 per household. What happened here? Why did the price suddenly skyrocket? There are reasons why the figures are not available in New South Wales. In Victoria, South Australia and Queensland, it's a flat line. There's no increase in price. We couldn't justify an increase in price. We didn't have any increases. The price of coal didn't worry us because we got the coal for free. The price of labour was negligible, and we'd paid off the power stations, so we couldn't justify asking for anything more than $670. But, when privatisation came on the scene, what did you expect to happen? Just how dumb and stupid are you in this place? What did you expect to happen? If you sold all of the electricity industry in Australia for $150 billion, because that's about what it was, then the people who bought it would have to show a return on their investment, and, not unnaturally, they asked for a nine per cent return. So, suddenly, the electricity consumers of Australia had to find an extra $15 billion a year. We're talking about 2½ per cent of the entire federal budget at $15 billion a year. Electricity prices had to show a return on invested capital. I mean, how could you not see that? Then you say, 'Oh, it's just a failure of market mechanisms. It's just oligopolistic pricing; it's monopoly type pricing.' No, it's not. It's a valid return on invested capital. We didn't have any capital to serve because we'd already paid it off. The previous speaker left out a little bit: them being involved in wanting to sell the rest of the assets in Queensland. I warn the people in this place. I warn you. In Queensland, we've got a little more brains than you in other states, because, when that state government sold those assets, it suffered the biggest landslide in Queensland's history. Anna Bligh led the government of Queensland. The ALP were the government of Queensland. After the election, they had, I think, five seats. That was all they were left with: five seats. So two people voted for Annastacia Palaszczuk. She became the Premier of Queensland on two votes! Now, the Liberals were so stupid that they went to the next election saying they were going to sell the rest of the assets. So one party sold the electricity industry, corporatised it, and sold the railways and got annihilated by the people of Queensland, and the other party was so stupid that they proceeded down exactly the same pathway. Surprise, surprise: they got annihilated in the second biggest landslide recorded in Queensland's history. So I warn you: you try and privatise the electricity industry in Queensland and the people of Queensland will 'kill you'. I am proud to be able to say that in this place and be able to back it up with two election results. You may be stupid enough to even think about proceeding down that pathway. The world exploded when this legislation came in. I and the ALP saw it as a sneaky plot to sell off the assets in Queensland—to force the sale of the assets in Queensland. The sneaky Queensland government corporatised the asset. They said, 'It's an asset of $30 billion. We've got to get some return on our investment, of course.' So Queensland fared no better than any other state under the corporatised model. We now lie with the aluminium industry which came to Queensland. This was our third biggest industry in Queensland, because we had the cheapest electricity charges in the world. Do you know what's going to happen now that we have, arguably, the highest charges? The last graph I got had Australia with the highest electricity charges in world. Now that we've got the highest electricity charges in the world, what do you think is going to happen to the aluminium industry? Aluminium is just congealed electricity. The vast bulk of the cost of aluminium is the electricity element. So the Queensland government want to close down the coal industry. They want to close down the sugar cane industry. The third-biggest industry is aluminium and, as sure as the sun rises tomorrow, it's going to vanish because we have the highest electricity charges in the world. It's not as quite as simple as I'm making it out to be but it is a fair call to say what I have just said. When you go down a pathway and you make a terrible mistake and you say, 'Oh, no, I wasn't wrong; I'm going to continue to do it,' you make a bigger mistake and a bigger mistake and an even bigger mistake and eventually the history books write you up as the worst government in the entire history of Australia, and that judgement has to be passed at the present moment. We have no economy left now. We only have two industries. We're not a mining country. Mining is when you dig it out of the ground and sell the metal. That's mining. We dig it out of the ground and sell the ground. That's called quarry, so we have two quarries. We have an iron ore quarry and a coal quarry. I think the coal issue will be about $70,000 million and I think the next item down may be aluminium or cattle, which is about $12,000 million, so this economy only rests upon two products now. If either of them falter, God help Australia. There are people in this country who want the coal industry closed down. Forget about buying your biros from overseas, your clothing from overseas, your cars from overseas, your petrol from overseas, your white goods from overseas, your mobile telephones from overseas because you won't have any money to buy them. You've only got two sources of income now. I mean, the wool industry carried this country for 150 years and Mr Keating, the greatest Treasurer in the world, easily the most atrocious Treasurer in this nation's history, deregulated the wool industry. Well, surprise, surprise, wool dropped down to one-third of the price it had been before deregulation. Well, that was fairly predictable because when Doug Anthony introduced the scheme, the price went up 300 per cent. When the scheme was taken away, the price went down. Well, too late now. Some 70 per cent of your wool sheep have gone. There are some fat lambs left but that's only 62 per cent of the sheep herd. So we come to the situation of today. I think we all like Josh, the Treasurer. Even his Liberal partners, if they were honest, would say he's a very likeable person, right? But he's locked into a conventional wisdom, the free market ideology, and he can't ever see outside of that. Now, if the free market philosophy, ideology, operated in this country, there would have been no wool industry, which carried the country for 150 years. There would have been no wool industry because farmers were given the land for free by the government. The government believed that it should back the farmers and gave the land to John Macarthur and all the rest of them for free. There would be no aluminium industry, there most certainly would be no coal industry but there may have been an iron ore industry, I'd have to say. What would this country be left with if we had that free market ideology operating over the last century? There'd be nothing left of this country at all. I mean, even the tourism industry in Queensland was sparked off by us giving land free to resort developers, Keith Williams being the leading one. We all know that the biggest man-made tourist attraction in Australia by far is Sea World and that land was given to him for free on condition that he built it. So you can have no government intervention, you can have your free markets, but there is no other country on earth that is marching to that drum. (Time expired) 18:39 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi As an Independent, I see my role as advocating for sensible, evidence-based policy that addresses the needs of Indi and the interests of Australia. When I look at this bill, I am not convinced that it does this. The energy minister says this bill will reduce electricity prices by stamping out bad behaviour on the part of electricity companies. I have looked intensely at this question and I don't think the evidence supports this claim. According to the ACCC, the effective price paid by residential electricity customers has increased 56 per cent in real terms, from 19c per kilowatt hour in 2008 to 30c per kilowatt hour in 2018. The average bill jumped from $1,200 a year to more than $1,600 a year. If we're going to reverse that we need to why. Writing in the Australian Financial Review, the minister says that electricity prices are high because of 'deliberate manipulation of the wholesale market', where companies artificially constrain supply to boost prices and hike their bids in the spot market. That's a big claim and the energy market is complex. So how do we know if it's happening? Luckily for us, the government asked itself this question and we have the answer—and it's a no. In 2017, the then Treasurer, now Prime Minister, asked the ACCC to conduct an inquiry into the causes of retail electricity prices and provide recommendations as to how to tackle them. In June of last year, that inquiry was handed down. According to the ACCC, wholesale prices made up just a quarter of the increase that people have seen. The largest contributor was network costs, which the government's bill does not address. But did wholesale prices go up to 'deliberate manipulation', as the minister says? According to an ACCC report, that the Prime Minister himself commissioned, no, they did not; that behaviour did not happen. The key problem this bill claims to solve is not happening. But there's more evidence. In November 2016, the then Minister for the Environment and Energy, now the Treasurer, and the then Treasurer, now the Prime Minister, asked Australian Energy Regulator to closely monitor wholesale prices to catch any abusive wholesale market behaviour following the closure of the Hazelwood power station in Victoria. In March last year, the regulator released their findings. They said: Our analysis did not identified instances where the opportunistic exercise of market power significantly affected average price outcomes in Victoria or South Australia since Hazelwood closed. Then, in December, the AER released results of yet another investigation, saying that, 'despite this vulnerability to the exercise of market power, we did not identify short-term behaviour as contributing to recent price rises'. That's three major studies commissioned by the government, conducted by the government's own agencies, that directly refute the central claim used to justify this bill. The minister has spoken publicly and often of one study that did find evidence of abuse. This was a working paper from an economist at the Victorian Energy Policy Centre. However, that report has been widely criticised as being deeply flawed. Frontier Economics wrote: The numerous methodological and procedural flaws in the Mountain-Percy report leave the evidence well short of that required to allege serious wrongdoing by market participants. Certainly, the report does not provide any suitable justification for the government’s misguided interventions in the NEM. The Grattan Institute's Tony Wood put it more simply: 'The government is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.' Electricity prices are high but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it is because of abuse of the wholesale market. The latter part of the 'big stick bill' addresses huge margins for retail companies. This contributed just 13 per cent of the price rise, but there is some truth to this claim of the government's. According to the Grattan Institute, retail electricity companies have significantly higher margins than other industries and it's well established that they gouge customers. This is an area where I do support further policy. But what concerns me about this bill is not only that it might fail to address the real problems in the electricity sector but also that it might threaten investment in new energy infrastructure in our regions. My electorate of Indi, like most in Australia, is not a fossil fuel electorate. There are no jobs in fossil fuel mining or energy generation in Indi. Instead, we are a renewable electorate. In the Hume region, we produce 1,700 gigawatt hours of renewable electricity every year—about as much as a small coal-fired station. We get our energy from solar farms, from 20,000 rooftop solar PV installations and from major hydro generators that bring jobs and income to the towns of Dartmouth, Mt Beauty, Eildon and Yarrawonga. At the Barnawartha biodiesel plant, 16 employees produce 50 million litres of biodiesel every year. In my electorate, renewables are jobs. By introducing an extraordinary power that has never existed in this country before, the government risks scaring off investment in a crucial industry for regional communities. The Business Council of Australia has said: … this legislation has the potential to make things worse, perversely creating even more uncertainty and discouraging new investment in the energy sector. You might think, 'Well, big business would say that.' But what about the Human Rights Commission? They say they are robustly opposed to the creation of unilateral divestment powers for the Treasurer—that such discretionary and quasi-judicial powers represent deep and genuine sovereign risk, and, if enacted, these powers would cast a pall over investment in all sectors of the Australian economy. And the Energy Users Association, the people this bill is supposed to be helping, said: The investment uncertainty that passing this Bill will create will only increase the risk faced by the electricity supply chain. A risk that will inevitably be passed on to our members in the form of even higher prices … Right now, we have interest in almost three gigawatts of renewables projects just in my electorate and the Hume region alone, covering all of my electorate and that of my neighbour, the member for Nicholls. That's two Hazelwoods worth of power. If built, these projects would bring $4 billion to the local economy and supply us with the cheapest form of power going around. On top of that, in the mountains of Indi we have the potential for enough pumped hydro storage to supply Australia's needs 13 times over—6½ thousand gigawatt hours. That's seven Snowy Hydros. The minister talks, rightly, about the need for greater investments in dispatchable power and storage to support the integration of renewables. But how will we attract this to Indi, where we have the best storage resources in the country, with the government creating this type of sovereign risk? In recent weeks, I've listened to many views, and the message I keep hearing is that this law will not help drive investment in our region. The CSIRO estimates that Australia needs $400 billion of investment in utility-scale generation over the next 30 years. This is because our antique coal plants are breaking down and being retired, and will need to be replaced. The best thing we can do to drive down prices is to bring on this investment in the cheapest form of power we have and create a policy framework that incentivises investment in storage and firming to support the integration of those renewables. Sadly, I fear that this bill risks undermining the good work the government has done, in fact, to lower prices. Analysis by the Grattan Institute of futures contracts in the mainland electricity market shows that prices are expected to trend downwards to around $70 per megawatt hour. This is the government's 2021 price target. The interventions the government has already made seem to be working. The market is correcting itself. The government talks about the closure of the Liddell station as needing urgent action—possibly under the powers of this bill—to ensure that New South Wales doesn't run out of power. But the government's own projections released just a few weeks ago, the 2019 Electricity Statement of Opportunities, show that New South Wales will remain well within the reliability standard even after Liddell closes, and that's not even counting new generation assets that will come online in the next three years. The pressure the government has already placed on companies and the impact of its retailer reliability obligation seem to have worked. In a worst-case scenario, just 0.0019 per cent of electricity demand will be unmet in New South Wales, up from 0.001 per cent today. Finally, the government's introduction of a default market offer will lead to savings of $500 to $800 for some households, and the early evidence indicates that this is already happening. The government do not need to introduce this bill, because they've already got us on the right track. I fear this big stick will wack us back to being off course. I opened my remarks by articulating how I see my role as the independent member for Indi. My role is neither to necessarily support nor to oppose whatever the government does but to look at legislation on its merits and do what I can to improve it, and here are three concrete ways we could improve this legislation. First, we could introduce a sunrise trigger. We should empower the Energy Regulator with new powers to investigate market misconduct. If, after one year, they find evidence of companies engaging in the types of misconduct under consideration, the bill would automatically come into effect. Right now, the government claims we need new powers to punish bad behaviour, and the companies say the behaviour doesn't exist. Let's call both their bluffs. If the companies are so sure it's not happening, they won't mind a year of scrutiny from the AER. Equally, if the government is convinced it's happening, they'll have nothing to fear from making the legislation contingent on finding evidence. Second, we need to remove the powers of the Treasurer to make unilateral decisions. In its current form, the bill enables the Treasurer of the day extraordinary and inappropriate powers. Cooler heads must prevail. Third, we must amend the bill to ensure it cannot be used by the government to force coal stations to stay open for longer than they planned. If this happens, it will threaten investment in new generation and keep prices higher for longer. This big stick cannot become an ideological whip for the government. As I laid out today, I have deep reservations about the bill. However, it is clear this bill will pass, so I must decide what role I will play. On the night I was elected I committed to working with the government, whoever it may be, to improve policy. I believe that, if this House can soften the bluntest edges of this bill and the government is then willing to listen to communities on the ground and work to increase investments and jobs in renewable energy, we may have a constructive path forward. I will be supporting sensible amendments to this bill, like the changes I have outlined today, but I am willing to support passage of the bill through the House. I do so with deep reservation, but I do it believing that I can work with rather than against the government and I can achieve the most I can for Indi and for regional Australia. Now I speak directly to the energy minister. You have assured the nation this bill will not slow investment in renewables. You have assured us this bill will not be misused. So our eyes turn to you. You have promised much, and now you must deliver. We look to you to see what you will do to ensure investments in renewables and storage remain high. We look to you to see how you will convert our $4 billion renewables pipeline across Hume into actual investment. We look to you to see how you will give confidence to the energy market, and we look to you for ways to export our knowledge to the world to reduce emissions overseas that are harming our communities here. You will get your stick, but Australia needs its carrot. I extend, again, my invitation to come to Indi to learn from our nation-leading, community renewable projects and find ways to develop with us our potential for storage. We look to you. We want to work with you, and we will not blink. 18:53 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara While I note the sincerity and the thoughtful contribution by the member for Indi, I would not be holding our collective breath if we're waiting for this current minister for energy to come up with anything that resembles an energy policy of any coherence in the country. When we look back on history and ask ourselves what the point of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments was, it certainly won't have been to deliver coherent energy policy for our country, an energy plan that can deliver our nation reliable, clean and secure energy into the future in a much-advancing and rapidly-changing grid. As the world evolves around us, Australia sits still under the watch of this government and under the watch of this energy minister. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019, also known as the big-stick legislation, is a classic example of a government who, instead of having a plan to actually reform our energy market, gives us a big stick. While this bill, after the amendments put forward by the member for Hindmarsh as well as the second reading amendment put forward by the member for Rankin, can be supported, it can't stop with this bill. The original concerns put forward by the Labor Party in regards to this bill were to ensure that this bill didn't become a tool for backdoor privatisation. We didn't want to have a situation where workers were fighting for their rights under the Fair Work Act; therefore, we have sought amendments to ensure that those rights are safeguarded. Labor also is providing conditional support for basic worker rights and partial privatisation to be completely ruled out by the government. This government, under their watch, have completely failed to provide energy policy to our country. It is no surprise that hardly any members of the government are coming to defend their big stick, because it is not going to provide the long-term certainty, strategy and coherent policy that our country needs. And while they dither and do nothing and have no plan for our energy market, small businesses suffer, retailers suffer, mums and dads suffer and households suffer because this government have been saying that they're going to bring down our energy prices. I think the former title of the current Minister for Emissions Reductions and Energy was the 'minister for reducing power prices'—or something that they usually put in the title of a bill—and, instead, we've got nothing. All the while, prices have gone up, gas prices have tripled, wholesale power prices across the national energy market have skyrocketed, and household budgets and retailers have felt the pressure. Thousands and thousands of manufacturing jobs are constantly being strained by this government's failure in energy policy. So what have the government done? In typical government fashion, they have ordered reviews. Let's get a review. Let's review it. Why not? Let's have a look at the review. We had the Finkel review that led to nothing. AEMO, the Energy Security Board, industry and Infrastructure Australia have all had a look. The government have had energy minister after energy minister yet have no ability to actually bring forward a policy. We all remember when they used to have one. The last Prime Minister who actually had an energy policy was Malcolm Turnbull. But, sadly, his time in this House was cut short by his own party. I thought that the energy crises that have constantly riddled the coalition were summed up very nicely by an article in The Guardianon 1 July 2019. The title of the article reads: Malcolm Turnbull pulled back from NEG legislation after Dutton and Pyne 'went nuts'. Dutton and Pyne went nuts, according to The Guardian. I'll read a small excerpt of the article into Hansard for the benefit of the House. In her new book, Nikki Savva says Pyne argued in favour of putting the National Energy Guarantee on ice to stop the Liberals 'leaving a trail of gore behind us'. The article went on to say: 'Turnbull’s plan was to bring the NEG on [in parliament],' Dutton is quoted as saying by Savva. 'Pyne and I went nuts.' … … … 'It was never going to happen. There were 20 people on our side who were not going back to their electorates with photos of them sitting next to Tanya Plibersek voting on a motion supporting climate change.' 'It would have been a complete disaster for the government. We effectively had the bill pulled.' Now that's what life's like inside the coalition party room, where you have the moderates and the conservatives both working together to pull down energy policy by the former Prime Minister. So what happens? The then energy minister, now Treasurer, left parliament without a bill. It worked out okay for him; he ended up becoming the Treasurer. We all remember the smile from ear to ear that he had walking out of that sorry caucus room after having an awkward exchange with the Prime Minister and a photo out the front. But of course the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, did not survive that exchange and that was the final nail in the political career of Malcolm Turnbull. Instead of providing energy certainty, certainty to investors and a coherent climate policy, Dutton and Pyne went nuts. I think that says it all about the ability of the Liberals to provide coherent energy policy. I was listening in my office to the prior debate. The Greens are continuing to lay on their lectures to everyone else in this House. Now, I at least acknowledge the fact that the Greens want to bring down our emissions. That's a good thing. But we cannot forget the fact that a decade ago Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister, and his partner in crime Christine Milne, voted together to kill off the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the CPRS. That brought on a decade of policy inertia. Yet not once have we heard from the Greens that they take responsibility for voting with Tony Abbott to kill off any chance for Australia to have a coherent policy to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Not once has the member for Melbourne come into this place and said, 'You know what? We got that wrong.' I haven't heard any Greens senator in the other place say, 'Maybe if we had our time over we wouldn't have voted with Tony Abbott to kill off our country's chances of tackling climate change.' Not once did that happen, and I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the Greens to come into this place and admit that they got that one utterly and definitely wrong. So, what have we got now? We have a federal government without an energy policy and without a plan. We have a federal government that, instead of providing our country and our investors with the certainty and the direction and the vision to actually create sustainable, clean, reliable energy in this country, has given us a big stick. Let's contrast that to what's been happening in some of the states, because there hasn't been failure around the entire country. Rather, the failure has been prevalent inside the Liberal and National parties here in Canberra. Let's start with Victoria. There is legislation on the books, passed through the parliament, outlining climate targets. There is a bill on the books in Victoria that moves us towards net zero emissions by 2050. Victoria has a renewable energy target, which is creating thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs, not just in the inner city, as I know many like to label it, but thousands of jobs in the burbs and in rural and regional Victoria. It is creating jobs for Victorians building wind turbines. One is at the old Ford factory, which I spoke about the other day. After those opposite goaded the car industry to leave this country, the Geelong Ford factory was shut down. Now, thanks to the investments made and the policy certainty given by the Victorian government, wind turbines are being manufactured in Geelong at the old Ford factory. Hazelwood, a large coal mine and power plant in the Latrobe Valley has been shut down. While the Greens celebrated, the Labor Party took a very different approach. The Labor government got to work. We didn't leave the thousands of workers and their families to just deal with the situation with Hazelwood closing down. We got to work providing training, skills and transition support. We also got to work creating Solar Victoria, the new government agency that now operates out of the La Trobe Valley, that was designed in order to oversee the installation that will see 650,000 Victorian homes sitting underneath solar panels to reduce the power bills of Victorian families. We had a renewable energy target and thousands of jobs being created, helping workers transition. We had a coherent climate policy, supporting workers, creating Solar Victoria, bringing down power prices and providing certainty to those companies that want to invest in Victoria. Let's now swing around and have a look at what happened in Canberra. Well, as The Guardian says, Dutton and Pyne went nuts. There has been policy failure, with 15 different energy policies—none of which have provided certainty to the market—and weak targets. There have been cries of help from industry, met with absolutely nothing. We now have dead cats thrown onto the table, and the government and the energy minister asking the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy to look at nuclear energy—something that's not going to bring down our emissions in the next decade, something that is very expensive and something that we currently don't have the ability to manufacture and create and oversee in this country. And we have a scandal-ridden energy minister, on top of a big stick. That is the difference. It's the Labor government in Victoria—which has been getting to work and providing certainty for businesses and support for families, bringing down power prices by providing solar panels on their homes, and has a coherent energy policy with a vision for the future—versus the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government in Canberra, under which we get a big stick. So, when we ask ourselves, as I asked at the start of this speech—and I know the member for Fraser here often asks this question of himself—'What is the point of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government?' there is no answer. History won't be kind. There's no plan for connecting renewable energy. There's no plan for building transmissions. There's no plan to support small businesses. There's no plan to bring down our energy prices. There's no plan to provide certainty for investment. There's no plan to create an energy policy that will actually transition Australia, not just in the next 10 years but in the next 20 years. There's no plan to support renewable energy—the cheapest form of energy, according to AEMO in their latest GenCost report. There is no plan from this government, because all they've got is a big stick. This country deserves better. The workers, the small businesses and the families deserve better. We stand with people and with families who rely on lower power prices—but, unfortunately, they're not going to get them from this government. 19:08 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019, the so-called big stick legislation. Before I go to some of the detail of the legislation, I think it's important to actually talk about what has occurred in energy policy over the last six years under this government because, quite frankly, I can't think of any greater public policy failing in Canberra than this government's woeful energy policy experience. They've had 16 energy policies in six years—16! In fact, in 2018, they had four energy policies in 14 days in the heady month of August. The sad fact is: it is Australian consumers and industry that are paying the price for this energy policy fiasco. Since 2015, wholesale electricity prices—the cost of producing electricity—have risen by 158 per cent. In fact, over the last 12 months, future prices for electricity have risen by 29 per cent. We've seen a tripling of gas prices in this country under this hopeless government. We've seen ageing generators facing a long hard summer ahead. Seventy-five per cent of our generators in this country are operating beyond their planned plant life, and that is of huge concern because, unfortunately, that will mean more blackouts in this country unless we get new investment. I remember a fateful day in February 2018, when we hit 45 degrees in New South Wales, and I spoke to energy plant operators, the actual workers, in the four power stations in my home region of the Hunter Valley, which cumulatively produced 9,000 megawatts of power as their capacity, fully around 30 per cent of Australia's electricity generation. Each of them were struggling very significantly under the high temperatures and the demands that households and industry were placing on them. These power stations were all approaching the end of their natural plant life. That's what all their companies have said. Each of the companies involved, with the exception of Sunset Power, have placed closure dates on those power stations not because of government policy but because they are very old and the cost of maintaining them is skyrocketing. Liddell has a closure date of early 2023 set by the company. Origin has nominated 2032 for the Eraring Power Station, the biggest power station in the country, and 2035 or thereabouts for Bayswater. These power stations need to be replaced because of their age, but, because of the energy policy fiasco from the government—16 policies in six years; four in 14 days in 2018—investors can't make the hard decisions to invest in plants where the payback is 40 or 50 years. We are also not seeing the necessary rule changes for the energy market to keep up to date with evolving technologies and consumer preferences. These are the real issues facing the energy market, but, sadly, none of them are addressed by the 'big stick' legislation. When this 'big stick' legislation was first submitted by the government, it had some serious issues, principally the fact that it was a backdoor to full privatisation of assets, particularly in Queensland, and also gave far too much power to the minister—a minister who is up there in being the most incompetent minister in this government. That's some competition there, but I think he takes the prize. We worked on those two issues, and I'm glad to say that government came on board and fixed up both those issues. Labor is proposing to further strengthen this bill, particularly to ensure that there is no risk of partial privatisation, which is another important concern, and Labor will also fight to protect workers' rights by ensuring that their rights under the Fair Work Act are safeguarded in the event of divestment. Labor's support for the bill in this House is the conditional on these improvements that protect basic worker rights and rule out partial privatisation. Labor will continue to scrutinise the bill and is prepared to work with the Senate to address any further unintended consequences. Labor does remain sceptical that this bill will do what the government claims—that is, lower power prices. The government presented no evidence, no analysis and no modelling to support this claim, and, as I said, power prices have skyrocketed on their watch. That's why Labor is proposing an amendment to review the bill before it sunsets. This review will look at its impact on the electricity sector, including affordability. Labor also calls on the government to work with experts and industry to ensure that there are no unintended consequences of the bill. Following further consultation, Labor is concerned that, under the current bill, there is a risk that workers could lose protections and entitlements under the Fair Work Act in the event of divestment. Under the current bill it is not clear that the sale of an asset due a divestment order will be considered by courts to constitute a connection between the company subject to divestment and the purchaser of the asset, leaving open the possibility that the Fair Work Act transfer-of-business provisions will not apply. That's why we're moving this amendment to ensure that workers affected by divestment have all the protections they deserve under the Fair Work Act. I'm hopeful that the government will support this necessary amendment. Let me say yet again why we're supporting this act, even though we don't think the bill will actually do much for the energy market. It is because we have gotten rid of the threat of full privatisation, we have dialled back the ridiculous powers granted to the minister and we're hopeful that two further amendments—around ruling out partial privatisation, and greater worker protection—can be addressed and achieve support from the government. I want to flag another issue, which goes to the specific arrangement around the mooted closure of the Liddell Power Station. This power station is obviously very old. It is facing real issues around maintenance and reliability. As such, AGL have made the decision to close Liddell and replace it with a suite of other power sources—principally, a new gas-fired power station and Tomago, and a range of renewable energy sources, principally a windfarm and a pumped hydro project. Importantly, AGL have given plenty of notice to its workforce and the community. They have given five years notice. This stands in stark contrast to the actions of ENGIE, who only gave four months notice for Hazelwood, leaving the workers and the community in the lurch, and the five months notice given by Alinta when they closed the Northern Power Station in South Australia. So AGL have done the right thing and given five years notice so that the workers and the communities close to my electorate can actually plan their future. Equally as important as the notice, the company and the main trade union representing the workforce, the CFMEU Mining and Energy Division, have negotiated really solid outcomes to look after the workers. Principal amongst that is a commitment from the company and the union that there will be no forced redundancies and that every single worker at Liddell who wants to continue with AGL will either transfer across to the neighbouring Bayswater Power Station or will be accommodated in other parts of AGL. That is really important. There will be some workers who are probably approaching the end of their working life who are happy to take a redundancy package and retire early, but many workers, who might have young families and mortgages to pay, may want to stay in the industry. This is a fabulous initiative—an initiative that is consistent with what other countries have engaged in when they've seen major closures. It is something that I applaud both the trade and the company for engaging in in a very honest and brave manner. If there is any divestment of Liddell, it is very important that these arrangements are not undermined. Let me repeat that: nothing in this bill should undermine what I think is nation-leading practice around the transition of a closing power station. That is why it is very important that the Senate look at this issue closely when it does its inquiry into this bill. I cannot support any initiative that undermines worker entitlements, and that is why we have moved the amendment around the Fair Work Act entitlements. Equally, we must ensure, as much as we can, that no consequence of this bill undermines the very important arrangements that the Mining and Energy Division of the CFMEU has negotiated for its members with AGL at Liddell—something that gives those workers and the community around Liddell peace of mind that they will still have jobs at the end of this process. I think it is an excellent policy. Related to the Liddell issue is the Liddell task force that the New South Wales government has formed with the government to look at all possible impacts of the closure of Liddell. Somewhat bizarrely, so far the Commonwealth and the state government are refusing to have worker representation on this task force. They have representation from Muswellbrook Shire Council—which is good thing; they should have the local government representative—and the company is clearly on the task force, but not to include workers is a disgrace. This closure can only be managed through cooperation between the company, the union and the workers it represents, and the local community. So it is essential that there is a representative of the CFMEU Mining and Energy Division on the Liddell task force—not to throw bombs, because that's not the way they operate, but to engage in a cooperative manner to try to arrive at an outcome that benefits the community, that looks after the workers and that ensures energy security going forward. So I call on the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction to engage with and appoint a representative of the CFMEU Mining and Energy Division to the Liddell task force as a sign of goodwill. Quite frankly, it's the best way of maximising the positive outcomes from the Liddell task force, should it actually have any. This really goes to the heart of the entire energy debate. The government is more intent on ideology than facts. We saw that with their civil wars in their party room around energy policy—with 16 energy policies in six years and knocking off a Prime Minister because he actually tried to do something in this area. This is not only having an impact on prices—with the wholesale energy price up 158 per cent, forward prices up 29 per cent and a tripling of gas prices—but also leading to a massive missed opportunity in the transition that is occurring in energy production all around the world. We are missing out on the massive opportunity, just as we did in the first round of solar technologies that were developed. It's a little-known fact that 60 per cent of the photovoltaic cells—the things on people's roofs producing solar power—are based on technology developed at the University of New South Wales, but we got very little jobs out of this innovation, because the Howard government was so virulently anti-renewable energy. That was a massively missed opportunity. We are seeing another missed opportunity right now with the attack on renewable energy by this government. We have a renewable energy strike going on right now, because the delivery of the RET has been accomplished. Labor's RET has been fulfilled, and so renewable energy investment is falling off the cliff. This is a massively missed opportunity. There are significant jobs to be gained in renewable energy if we have sound investment. The hydrogen industry could produce 16,000 jobs for Australia, taking advantage of the massive demand that is going to occur for clean hydrogen in the economies of North Asia. We can also be the home of energy-intensive manufacturing, because we have more solar radiation falling on our continent per square metre than anywhere else in the world, and we have great wind and wave resources as well. Once we get through the transition to renewable energy, we can be the home of low-cost energy-intensive manufacturing. We are also greatly endowed with the inputs to the new clean energy technologies. We're the second-largest producer of rare earths in the world. We have the greatest reserves of iron and titanium, the second-greatest reserves of copper and lithium and the third-greatest reserves of silver. These are all instrumental, these are all key, to producing batteries, solar PV cells and other technologies. So there is a great opportunity for key parts of our mining industry to benefit from the clean technology boom. In fact, our metallurgical coal sector can also benefit. It takes 200 tonnes of coking coal to produce one wind turbine, and that's great news for our coal industry and is something I wholeheartedly support. These are the opportunities that are there to be embraced if we have a stable and rational energy policy. Sadly, we are not seeing it from this government. We are seeing chaos and division. We have seen 16 energy policies in six years. We are seeing ideology run rampant. Half their party room is the tinfoil hat brigade, who don't accept the science of climate change. They don't accept market realities that renewable energy is now the cheapest form of new power. They have half their party room led by the member for Hughes, who is often off in cuckoo land, and then we have the other half who are probably worse! They are pragmatists. They think they can take political advantage of scaring people about climate change rather than taking action on greenhouse gas emissions. They will be condemned by history. They will be condemned by their kids and their grandkids for putting their short-term political interests ahead of a necessary transition that will be good for the economy, that will lower power prices and that will produce a whole new generation of energy— (Time expired) 19:23 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I want to enter the debate this evening to speak on this important bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019. I want to place on record my concerns as a Queenslander and as a federal member who represents some disadvantaged areas about just how important it is that we get energy policy right in this country. I want to start by talking about some of the amendments that Labor has moved to the bill to ensure that, if it is to become policy, workers affected by divestiture are covered under transfer of business provisions of the FWA. Whilst our strong concerns around privatisation from the first version of the bill have been substantially addressed, we are proposing to strengthen this aspect of the bill to ensure there is no risk of partial privatisation. I also want to ensure that we fight to protect workers by ensuring their rights under the Fair Work Act are safeguarded in the event of divestment. As I said, we know there have been some significant improvements in the bill than from when it was originally floated, but better protections are still needed. Under the current bill, it's not clear that the sale of an asset due to a divestment order will be considered by courts to constitute a connection between the companies subject to divestment and the purchaser of the asset, leaving open the possibility that the FWA transfer of business provisions will not apply. That is why these amendments are so important and that is why we're moving them today, to ensure workers affected by divestment have all the protection they deserve under the Fair Work Act. Labor's support for the bill in the House is conditional on these improvements that protect basic worker rights and rule out partial privatisation. I want to take a moment to highlight to the House when it comes to energy policy a good example or, as we hear, an alternative approach that perhaps the government should look at. This is in my home state of Queensland under the Queensland state Labor government led by Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, who continues to lead the way when it comes to sensible and effective management of energy prices to ensure that residents— Mr Thompson 281826 No, there's no competition! Mr DICK 53517 I am hearing the member for Herbert interject. I will take that interjection tonight, Mr Deputy Speaker McVeigh, because, as you know, as a former minister in the failed Newman government, one of the reasons the LNP was so comprehensively rejected—I notice the member for Herbert is now silent— because the party he supports were annihilated in Queensland, AND not for one election. I understand his commitment to privatisation. Mr Thompson 281826 That's rubbish! Mr DICK 53517 I understand by his interjections, which I will continue to take, that he supports the current opposition's plan to privatise assets in Queensland. He's not denying that. I understand that because I have lived that experience. I have seen, just as the member for Herbert has seen, his party was annihilated. You, Deputy Speaker McVeigh, were a former minister in that failed government when you were rejected by the Queensland population, not on one occasion but on two occasions, because of its ideological commitment to selling assets, cutting public servants and then sacking people as well. Cut, sack, sell—that is in the LNP DNA in Queensland. So, through his continual interjections, I realise the member for Herbert's fervent commitment to privatisation of Queensland public assets. We, on this side of the chamber and Queensland Labor members fight every single day against what the LNP want in Queensland. So let me highlight for the member for Herbert's asset that the Queensland state Labor government have achieved savings for Queenslanders because we own energy assets—the generation, the poles and the wires. Now listening to the debate tonight, the member for Herbert would want to sell those assets and his party would want to sell if they ever had the misfortune of returning to government under a failed leadership experiment, a toxic experiment led by the LNP in Queensland. Mr Thompson interjecting— Mr DICK 53517 That's right! I will take the member's interjection. It didn't last long. The largest swing in Australian history to deliver the LNP state government was then the largest swing ever recorded against any government in the Southern Hemisphere to be rejected by the Queensland people. These funds have also been reinvested across the electricity supply chain from generation, transmission and distribution to improve, maintain and deliver reliable power. More than $226.3 million was also invested into capital projects at Stanwell and CS Energy to keep generation assets running safely, reliably and efficiently. And another $210 million has been invested in polls and wires—the same poles and wires that the member for Herbert's party wanted to sell—in Queensland. Mr Thompson interjecting— Mr DICK 53517 Well, he's denying a fact in reality. And we know under his party, under the LNP in Queensland, power prices went up 43 per cent as they planned to sell Ergon and Energex. That was their plan; we know that. And their so-called regional competition policy would add $400 to every regional power bill or cost taxpayers another $700 million. He may think that's sensible economic policy. He may think that's sensible for regional Queensland. The hardworking members in his electorate will fight him every step of the way. It's black and white when it comes to the difference between this side of the chamber and Labor governments. On one hand you will continue to see this side of the chamber fight for fair and reliable energy prices. On that side of the chamber we will see increased power prices and, sadly, privatisation. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 72 ADJOURNMENT Iraq 72 19:30 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon One issue that should receive more attention in Australia and more attention this House is the current situation in Iraq. As somebody who has followed the situation in Iraq very closely over the years and visited Iraq, particularly Baghdad and Erbil in 2017, I am deeply dismayed at what we are observing in Iraq as we speak. Not only in Baghdad but around Iraq, protests are under way and have been continuing in Basra, Najaf, Karbala and in many Iraqi provinces. These protests are not new; they've been occurring for many years. What is new is the level of repression that is occurring in Iraq and the level of violence that is occurring in Iraq. We have seen 4,000 people injured and 100 people killed as a result of these protests in Iraq. This is completely unacceptable. Friends of democracy anywhere in the world should be concerned about this, and friends of Iraq should be concerned about this. There is a campaign of intimidation and assault against activists. There is a campaign of repression which is occurring. The demonstrations started on the first of this month, on the one-year anniversary of the Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi's government. They have claimed the lives, as I have said, of over 100 people. I note that it has been denied that this violent activity has been ordered by the government or by the Prime Minister. The question is: if the government hasn't ordered it, who has ordered this crackdown on democracy in Iraq? This has caused grave concerns in the Iraqi community in Australia. As a representative of many Iraqi Australians, I share those concerns and bring them to the attention of the House. On Friday last I met with the Joint Committee of Iraqi Organisations in Australia, representing 23 different organisations in Iraq, covering a range of religions and ethnic groups—Assyrians, Chaldeans, Mandaeans, Kurds and other representatives of the Iraqi community. They made the point that the violence does not discriminate—that people of all faiths have been impacted by the violence being perpetrated in Iraq—and that this has caused deep concern for the friends of Iraq and Iraqi Australians. Quite rightly, there's been a focus on events in Hong Kong, and I understand that and share that concern. But what we're seeing in Iraq, with 100 people killed, deserves the attention of the House as well. Australia of course played a role in the fall of Saddam Hussein, and therefore there is an ongoing interest and, indeed, an obligation on this House to take an interest in what has followed the fall of Saddam Hussein. What we have seen in recent months is reminiscent of the Hussein regime. Two activists, Ali Jaseb al-Hattab and Maytham Mohammed Rahim al-Helo, have been forcibly disappeared. According to the relatives of al-Hattab, armed men in a black pick-up truck dragged him away from his car, where he'd been to meet a client, and drove him away in one of their trucks. He has not been seen since. Again, this is reminiscent of previous days in Iraq. Australia and other coalition partners combined forces to improve the situation in Iraq, but what we have seen is not an improvement in many senses. The protests are set to resume on 25 October, this week, after a religious observance period which has seen the protests not proceed over recent days. I am deeply concerned, as I'm sure all honourable members would be, that, when they do resume the protests, the killing and the violence will resume as well. The Australian government needs to make very strong representations to the government of Iraq that this sort of violent crackdown on protesters is not acceptable to us as a country which has a deep interest in Iraq and which is home to many Iraqi Australians. The Joint Committee of Iraqi Organisations has called for the identification of the offenders who shot civilians and justice for them; the enforcing of the law to prevent violation of human rights; a guarantee of the right of demonstration; restriction of the ownership of arms within the Iraqi defence force; and a response to the demands of the demonstrators. These are reasonable requests—indeed, demands—on behalf of these Iraqi organisations to the Iraqi government. Iraq is meant to be a democracy, and with democracy goes the right to protest without fear for your life and fear of violence. As we speak, that is not happening in Iraq. Right across Iraq people are dying as they protest the actions of the government. Whether the government are right or wrong on policy, they are not right to engage in violence against Iraqi citizens. The situation is unacceptable. Liberal Party of Australia: 75th Anniversary, Berowra Electorate: 50th Anniversary 73 19:35 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I rise to speak about the 75th anniversary of the Liberal Party and the 50th anniversary of the Berowra electorate. In October 1944 Sir Robert Menzies formed a party out of what he called 'a mass of fragments'. What united the fragments was a shared commitment to liberalism and the pre-eminence of the individual in society. As Menzies said: We believe in the individual, in his freedom, in his ambition, in his dignity. If he becomes submerged in the mass, and loses his personal significance, we have tyranny. And because of this, we believe in free enterprise; not enterprise free of social obligation, but free enterprise in the sense that it embraces free choice, reward for effort and skill, encouragement to grow and be self-reliant, and strong. The Liberal Party is the party for all Australians. Unlike other parties we don't represent sectional interest groups like trade unions, rural Australia or environmental activists. Rather, we govern in the national interest. We don't believe that a person's lot in life is determined by the job they do, where they were born, what their parents did, their race, their gender, their sexual preference or their religion. Rather, we believe it is within each of our capacities to determine our own destiny, and that it's the job of government, therefore, to liberate the individual and put in place the conditions where they can rise and thrive. We believe that individuals have obligations to their families, to their community and to their nation, and we support individuals to serve all three. In celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Liberal Party last weekend, Prime Minister Morrison described our party as being 'founded on a commitment to personal freedom and individual responsibility—a party that recognised at its very birth that free and responsible individuals are the enduring pillars of loving families, caring communities and a strong country'. From Menzies to Morrison and beyond, our party will continue to deliver for all Australians because it has values that reflect and resonate with them—an optimism that stems from a pride which says that Australia is fundamentally a good country that does not need to be bent to fit an ideological paradigm but, rather, needs to be nurtured so that we can each make a contribution which is our own destiny. This Friday marks the 50th birthday of the Berowra electorate; it is the 50th anniversary of the 1969 election. The 1969 election was like the 2019 election; Labor thought they would win, yet they lost. The hubris of Labor supporters in 1969 was beautifully captured in David Williamson's play Don's Party, which became a film shot in Westleigh in my electorate. At that election the celebrated barrister Tom Hughes QC, now aged 95, became the first member for Berowra. Following that election he was appointed Attorney-General in the Gorton government. Since 1969 only four people—Tom Hughes, Harry Edwards, Philip Ruddock and myself—have had the honour of serving the Berowra community. As I said in my maiden speech: The people of Berowra are community minded and self-reliant. That is why there is a greater number of volunteers, people of faith and small business owners than in many other communities. On significant anniversaries like this, it's worth thinking about what the future might hold for Berowra. My vision for Berowra is to ensure that we preserve many of the things that make our community great: the strong individual identity of each suburb or town that Tom Hughes described as being 'like Italian city states'; the spirit of aspiration common to our small businesses and families; the call to community service, which sees people involved in sports clubs, service groups, P&Cs, the SES and the RFS; the multicultural nature of our electorate, with significant Chinese, Indian, Korean, Sri Lankan, Lebanese and Italian people; and its multifaith character, with Christians of every denomination—Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and Jews—making Berowra home. I want to preserve the physical beauty of the electorate, like the awesome majesty of the Hawkesbury River with its commercial and recreational fishing and aquaculture, its pleasure boats, its tourist destinations and its river communities surrounded by national parks and bushland. I want to maintain the rural areas still home to significant horticulture and hobby farms, providing people with a semi-rural experience 40 minutes from the CBD, and garden suburbs like Beecroft and Cheltenham. But there are things I want to change. I want to preserve more of our heritage homes. I want to see improvements to our community infrastructure, roads and telecommunications. I want to see fewer people in Berowra commuting for work. For many, Berowra is a bedroom community, where work is the city, Macquarie Park or north-west. I want to see more businesses attracted to our light industrial areas and the Hornsby CBD. With its rail junction, Hornsby should be a major centre, a gateway between the Central Coast and Sydney. I'll lobby to include Hornsby as a stop in any fast-rail project going north of Sydney. I know Berowra will have an exciting future. My task is to apply my Liberal values in representing our community so that together we can meet the challenges of the next half century. Manly Warringah War Memorial Park 74 19:40 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Sydney's Kakadu, an urban arc, a vital green lung of Sydney: all of these phrases have been used over the years to describe the natural beauty of the Manly Warringah War Memorial Park, known locally to us simply as Manly Dam. Located among the suburbs Manly Vale, North Balgowlah, Allambie Heights and Frenches Forest, this beautiful area of dense bushland and tranquil waters is cherished by locals and visitors alike. It's a place where Aboriginal dreaming and European heritage combine, where a diversity of flora and fauna thrive and where generations of families have spent hours picnicking, swimming, hiking, kayaking, waterskiing, bike riding and playing, connecting to each other and nature. The sense of tranquillity and connection to nature clearly dates back to the Dreamtime, as throughout the park there is evidence of Aboriginal campsites, artefacts and rock art, which pay homage to the creation story of Sydney watercourses. I take this opportunity to thank the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and the local Aboriginal Heritage Office for their efforts in not only identifying and protecting these sacred sites but for educating us in the local community about their cultural significance and importance. After tens of thousands of years of undisturbed peace, these beautiful areas underwent a radical transformation over the last 150 years. Like most parts of colonial Sydney, the catchment area quickly became populated. In 1892, Curl Curl Creek was dammed to create a reservoir to provide a permanent supply of fresh water to the nearby village of Manly. Over subsequent years the dam wall was raised so that the reservoir could supply neighbouring suburbs, eventually all the way up the coastal strip as far north as Mona Vale. As the population grew, the dam's capacity became insufficient and pumping from the dam ceased in 1933. For visitors to the park today, when looking at a fairly bland concrete dam wall it's easy to forget the engineering significance it represented and the importance it played to those early settlers in Manly Warringah. The significance was recognised in November 1999 when that bland concrete wall was listed on the State Heritage Register for its role in the development of Sydney's water supply. This engineering feat is just one of the threads that combine to weave a rich tapestry of history at Manly Dam. For many locals, the fondness they feel for the area derives from the fact that the park is one of the only living, breathing war memorials in Australia. The area around Manly Dam was established as a war memorial park after World War I, when a committee of ex-servicemen were given the responsibility of managing the bushland catchment. To this day, the Manly Warringah War Memorial Park Reserve Trust continues that tradition of custodianship. I thank the former and current members of the trust for their dedication and their service in organising the various commemorations that take place at this important site, in particular the Anzac Day dawn service, when every year a quiet and respectful crowd gathers on the water's edge to remember all who served. In a deeply moving ceremony, the park provides a special sense of peace and reflection. The park has become a community gathering point and the focus of much activity. As one of the only freshwater swimming holes in Sydney, it is a popular place of recreation. With that, of course, comes the danger of the park being loved to death. It is a delicate balance to manage human impact and environmental protection. On that front, I must commend the work of the Northern Beaches Council for their efforts to maintain this balance, but also the various volunteer groups who dedicate their time, energy and resources to ensuring the park is maintained and enhanced for all inhabitants. By this, I also refer to the wide variety of native wildlife that call Manly Dam home. More than 80 species of birds have been recorded in the park, and in the waterways several species of frogs can be found, including the common eastern froglet and the threatened red-crowned toadlet. Native fish include species such as the climbing galaxias, which can climb up wet rock faces and cliffs and can breathe through its skin. It has lived in the area for an estimated 60 million years. The park has great educational relevance for local primary and secondary schools and universities that use the park to study subjects like ecology, environmental management, water quality, Indigenous heritage and aquatic biology. The biodiversity is breathtaking. I am so pleased that in June this year the Northern Beaches Council voted unanimously to nominate the park for inclusion in the National Heritage List. I thank all the custodians for the amazing gift to future generations. Saffron Day 74 19:45 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin Today is Saffron Day, a day to honour the life of Deeyan Udani, a beautiful seven-year-old boy who tragically passed away in 2016. Deeyan and his sister, Naisha, had learned about organ and tissue donation at school. The siblings told their parents they wanted to be organ donors to help save the lives of others. Deeyan's parents' decision to donate his organs meant that four lives were saved as a result of this incredible gift. Deeyan's family came up with the idea of Saffron Day because orange was Deeyan's favourite colour and saffron symbolises courage, strength and sacrifice—qualities seen in little Deeyan. I urge all Australians to consider becoming an organ donor. Do it for Deeyan. Approximately 1,400 Australians are currently on the waiting list for a transparent, with a further 1,100 people on dialysis, many of whom would benefit from a kidney transplant. In 2018, over 1,780 lives were transformed due to organ donation. Even though the organ donation rate has doubled in recent years, there is still much more we can do. It is crucial that more people continue to register to improve waiting times. Almost all young adults say that they would be willing to donate their organs, yet less than eight per cent have officially registered their decision. Donor Mate is a charity raising awareness and promoting positive social attitudes towards organ donation, with a focus on young Australians. I recently visited a Donor Mate Touch and Go kiosk at TerryWhite Chemmart in Nedlands as part of their campaign to encourage young people to register for organ donation. The Touch and Go registration kiosks are being installed in places like medical centres, pharmacies and universities to make it easy for young people to access the information and sign up. All you need is your Medicare card to register. Since February, 20 kiosks have been installed in Perth and Bunbury. To date, the kiosks have been accessed over 1,300 times, with 94 per cent of users going straight to the sign-up register. I've just set one up in my electorate office in Subiaco to encourage anybody who visits my office to sign up. Meeting people who have had transplants really brings home just how important and how vital organ donation is and the impact it has on so many lives. I have had the great pleasure to get to know a truly inspirational woman in my electorate, Ms Sasha Bosich. Sasha suffered from chronic lung disease since birth. This worsened during her pregnancy and ultimately required her to undergo a double lung transplant. This surgery was undertaken at Fiona Stanley Hospital in Perth in August 2017. After a long and challenging experience prior to surgery, followed by the difficult and intensive post-transplant experience, Sasha is sharing her experience and taking a really active role in advocacy and support for other transplant patients. She's a board member of the Heart and Lung Transplant Foundation of WA, a consumer rep on the Australian Lung Transplant Advisory Committee, and she has also established, as her own initiative, Foundation Breathe to fundraise for the lung transplant unit at Fiona Stanley Hospital. She is focusing her foundation's efforts on raising money for equipment such as portable oxygenators, specialised nebulisers and handheld spirometers to help people stay healthy pre-surgery and stay home for as much time as possible. It's been two years since Sasha's surgery and she's still very well. Foundation Breathe will soon be celebrating its second annual Breathe Cocktail Party. Her fundraising efforts this year carry on from last year, when she raised $43,000 for the lung transplant unit. In finishing, I congratulate Donor Mate, I congratulate and thank Sasha Bosich and Foundation Breathe for the vital work they are doing. Registering is easy, but the other important step is taking time to talk to your loved ones to let them know what your wishes are. In Australia, 90 per cent of families say yes to a donation where their loved one is a registered donor. This compares to the national consent rate of 64 per cent. If you are already registered as a donor, find a plus one to join you on the donor register. It's a simple act that will help boost the number of potential organ donors in Australia and will save lives. Be inspired by Sasha, and do it for Deeyan. Yerbury, Professor Justin, University of Wollongong: Biofabrication Conference 2020 75 19:50 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham I just want to take the opportunity this evening to celebrate some wonderful local champions and to reflect on the fact that there are some tremendous researchers at the University of Wollongong and on the ways they inspire people in the broader community. It's a great story. I'm sure many of my colleagues with connections to universities will know that it's not just what happens within the university but the way they inspire the rest of the community in so many ways. Earlier this month, I joined my local state colleague the member for Wollongong, Paul Scully, to launch a very important event. It was the Port Kembla kids lemonade stand, raising money for motor neurone disease research. They were raising money for Justin Yerbury's research team at the University of Wollongong, who are working to find a cure for motor neurone disease. These five local Port Kembla children—Ocean and Tully Cross, Oceana and Orion Syred and Brave Sheridan—were inspired by Justin Yerbury's Australian Story. Many of my colleagues may remember seeing the episode on Justin's story. They decided to devote a small part of their school holidays raising funds for his motor neurone disease research team. They were supervised to ensure the quality of the product by their parents Renee Sheridan and Ben Syred. The children encouraged people to bring their own cups because they wanted to discourage single-use plastics, and they used paper cups themselves rather than plastic. They also had a lovely display of succulents for sale, which they'd grown themselves in their backyard, and some essential oils. They were every excited for their classic lemonade stand to be out the front of the garage all set up ready to go. The stand was only scheduled to run for a couple of hours, but it ended up running right through Sunday as well. They sold over 50 litres of lemonade and raised over $1,200 for motor neurone disease research. Justin was so impressed he came out to visit the stall with his wife, Rachel, his sister Naomi and his parents. I should let the House know that Professor Justin Yerbury is Wollongong's Citizen of the Year for 2019 and is an internationally renowned motor neurone disease researcher, who's led motor neurone disease advocacy, fundraising and research for over a decade. Of course, Justin was inspired by the fact that so many family members have been lost to motor neurone disease. Indeed, he is continuing to work and research while he undertakes his own battle with motor neurone disease. He's built a world recognised motor neurone disease research group at the University of Wollongong. They're an amazing and famous group of people. They're passionate. They organise fundraisers, such as art shows featuring scientific images made by other researchers and scientists at the university, trivia nights and other fundraising activities, to help fund their research work to find a cure for this debilitating disease. He recently, just in the last week or so, presented his latest findings at the University of Wollongong's Big Ideas Festival, a great event that the university organised. It showcased the university's groundbreaking research and the researchers involved. Justin was the first presenter and outlined his research. So I want to congratulate the five kids from Port Kembla and also Justin and his team for such important work. I was also able to attend the launch of 2020 Biofabrication conference—'biofab by the beach'. This is also a great achievement by the University of Wollongong. It's the first time this conference will be held in Australia. It will bring over 500 scientists from over 20 countries—engineers, clinicians, regulators and so forth—working in the biofabrication field, and they will be showcased at that event. In particular, it will showcase Professor Gordon Wallace and his team, from the Intelligent Polymer Research Institute, another group that really excite and inspire our community with the research and work they're doing in biofabrication, 3D printing and some really cutting-edge work that will help the life and the quality of life of so many Australians. So that is a great story there as well, and I'm looking forward to sharing more great stories from the university with the House. Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisations, Reserve Bank of Australia 76 NOTICES 77 NOTICES

Tuesday, 22 October 2019

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Wicks) took the chair at 16:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 81 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Media 81 16:00 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills This House has heard a lot about the importance of a free press to democracy, but I want to take a moment to reflect on what that means for ordinary working people in my electorate on a day-to-day level. In my electorate of Wills, the Moreland Leaderis the main local newspaper. There are busy local reporters covering all sorts of local events, but they also cover horrible crimes, like assaults and murders, as well as sporting fixtures, fundraisers, planning disputes, parking restrictions, traffic issues. These are all regular topics of interest. This may seem somewhat trivial to some of us here, and even to some in the media, but for many people in my electorate—one of the most diverse electorates in Australia—it is anything but. People who have come to Australia seeking freedom, security and prosperity value a free press in a way that I think is different from those of us who have lived here our whole lives in a democracy and may take it for granted. With a lot of those people I think there is an extra level of gratitude. They are thankful for a place where reporters can do their job without fear of censorship or persecution, and they feel that extra concern, alarm even, when this is threatened. Many people in my electorate come from overseas; many have come to Australia from places where there is no free press or very limited press freedom; where reporters live in fear of writing the wrong thing or angering the wrong people in government or where they fear intimidation or violence or worse; where websites and apps are blocked; where people who speak up disappear; where all information is controlled by government; where reporters and dissidents alike are imprisoned without charge, tortured and convicted in show trials. That is why some of the electors in my electorate of Wills experience that extra joy when they open up a local paper. It's a simple thing. It's not about the school fete that might be in the story; it's about having that basic right and basic freedom to be able to read a report that has been prepared by a press that's free. When people see our government emulating some of these chilling intrusions on the press that we've seen in some authoritarian regimes elsewhere, then people become deeply disturbed. The truth is that democracy is rare. It's precious. Only a little over half the world's population lives in a democracy. And our democracy withers or thrives based on how those of us trusted to nurture it, to protect it and to protect the freedom of the press—its lifeblood—go about that job. I have spent a lot of my career in national security and defence, and I'm not blind to the security considerations, getting that balance right, contained in reporting sensitive matters. I also know that members of the Australian media are acutely aware of public safety and national security in their reporting. Reporters do have a difficult job of balancing those two things, and it's important that we give them all the support that we can as members of a free press, because it's so important for our democracy. Monash Electorate: Bushfires 81 16:03 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash Recently part of my electorate of Monash was completely devastated by a massive out-of-control bushfire. It couldn't be contained with safety. We threw everything we could possibly throw at it, but the devastation to homes, to farms, to businesses, to wineries—to the whole community—has been shocking. The community is dealing with that as best they possibly can. They're brave. They're resolute. They're tough. They're strong. To replace the infrastructure just on a farm can be an enormous proposition, having regard to the fact that most fittings and fixtures are now plastic and they're gone from every trough. That's not the only problem though. When there are bushfires in other parts of Australia and governments make announcements about what they'll do for particular bushfire areas, the people in my electorate, who have not been offered exactly the same opportunity by government, of course come to me and say, 'Why?' And I say, 'It's a matter of fairness. You're correct.' So, as a government, every time we make a decision that we're going to distribute in a certain way or look after a certain group in our community in a certain fashion, we have to have consideration of those people who have been only recently affected by exactly the same problem, as we treat the same drought-affected victims right across the nation. We don't say, 'You get a little bit of drought support there,' and 'Not much support there.' We say, 'We, the people of the great south land, are going to look after these people.' So today I'm asking directly of my government for the people who have been affected by fires north of the highway, from Nar Nar Goon to Tonimbuk, who have been devastated by that and lost their businesses and lost their income, that they will be treated in exactly the same manner as those people who have lost their homes in northern New South Wales and Queensland. It's only reasonable for any government to treat its broader citizens in exactly the same manner. We're a federal government. We look after the whole of our communities. So I'm appealing today on behalf of the people who feel forgotten, who feel devastated and who feel lost, and who are calling themselves 'the forgotten fire'. You're not forgotten. You're not forgotten by me, and you won't be forgotten by this government. I give you that commitment. Burt Electorate: Champion Centre 82 16:06 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt On Friday, I joined in celebrating the reopening of the Champion Centre in Armadale, a unique local government community hub for Indigenous people in the community of Burt that provides a central location for our Aboriginal people to come together to access all sorts of vital government community services and programs. Over the last 11 years, countless community groups and services have been through the centre, providing life-changing support to our local Aboriginal community. In Armadale, we have about a 60 per cent higher Aboriginal population than the average across metropolitan Perth, and so supporting this urbanised Aboriginal community, which gives us such a great history and culture, is more important in our area. I've brought a number of my federal colleagues to the facility over the years, and it has left them all asking the same thing: why don't we have other similar facilities like this run by local government in other parts of the country? This is a safe space, providing groups and individuals with the help that they need in a comfortable setting. It literally can save lives whether it's through assisting with accessing Centrelink, accessing health services or arranging food hampers when families need them. With Noongar language classes, cultural support, assistance in getting a drivers licence or even simply a place to go to have a yarn, it's unique, and I'm proud to have it in my community of Burt. The Champion Centre's rebuild was funded through Lotterywest, a one of a kind Western Australian initiative that sees funds from the purchase of lottery tickets reallocated to community grant programs. This $4 million grant is one of the largest single grants ever given to a local government and is a testament to the great work that the Champion Centre has been doing for our community. I was very proud to be able to have with us at the opening Senator Patrick Dodson, who joined us alongside our state colleagues Dr Tony Buti, the member for Armadale, and Ben Wyatt, the state Treasurer and Minister for Indigenous Affairs. Senator Dodson is known as the father of reconciliation, and he shared with those in attendance that the Champion Centre and what the city of Armadale is doing with it, and, indeed, what all levels of government are doing, is a perfect manifestation of what reconciliation is and what it should aim to look like. And what is excellent is that the council and the city of Armadale, along with state government and others, have given the staff in the centre complete autonomy to do what they need to do to help our local Indigenous community in the way that they need help. It was brilliant to be able to be part of the opening that occurred on Friday. It was also an excellent opportunity for myself to be able to congratulate our outgoing, longstanding mayor, Henry Zelones, from the City of Armidale, who together with his council and his predecessors have done so much to fight to make sure that we have the funding needed for this vital service. My final thing in this speech is to implore the Minister for Indigenous Australians to ensure that the funding for this centre continues long into the future. South West Rocks Surf Life Saving Club 82 16:10 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper This year marks the 100th anniversary of the South West Rocks Surf Life Saving Club in my electorate of Cowper. On the 2nd of November past and present members will gather to celebrate this momentous milestone. I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate all of those who have been part of this 100 years, this rich history, but also to reflect on the past 100 years. Like all clubs, in the beginning, in 1919, the South West Rocks Surf Life Saving Club had difficulty maintaining membership but it was the establishment of the original surf club building that changed all this. The same building that stands proudly there today. Many members from the local community and surrounding district volunteered their time, their expertise and their materials to help build the club, which was completed at Christmas time 1924. With the new clubhouse, the official opening of the surf lifesaving season drew a record crowd of 1,000 people along main beach, along with 80 automobiles—quite a spectacle, as reported by TheMacleay Chronicle at the time. In 1926 Rev. Harris Walker was granted the first lifetime membership. I think it's fitting that I name all those who have received lifetime memberships: Frank Range, AW Fowler, Jack Saul, Tom Saul, Don Single, Charles Edwards, Reg Saunders, Cyril Constable, CR Sanders, Gordon Lawrence, Cecil Lawrence, Kevin Ruscoe, Gary Gillies, Bruce Caldwell, John Watson, Tony Hayes, Greg Coleman, Stan Bickell, Colin Ball, Pamela Ball, Mick Adams, Anne Pearce, Rod McDonagh and Frank Hardiman. Over the years a great number of South West Rocks members have successfully competed in branch, country, state and Australian competitions. Many have won top honours and many have represented their nation. It was the dedicated leadership of Mr Frank Range, club president for two decades, who eventually brought the club its first Australian title. In 1948 the club won its first Aussie title in the junior R & R event. In January 1953 South West Rocks Surf Life Saving Club is thought to be the first club in Australia to train and qualify an Indigenous Australian, Harry Prenith, in bronze medallion. He joined his mates Kevin Ruscoe, Allan Cannane and Barry Porter. Let's not forget what this club really stands for: saving lives, and that's what these men and women have done for 100 years. They've saved tens of thousands of lives over that time, quite often putting their own lives at risk in dangerous surf conditions—generally for a total stranger. Thank you to all those men and women who have served the community of South West Rocks. I am proud to have been a member of the South West Rocks Surf Life Saving Club in the past. I hope you have a fantastic night on the 2nd of November. I'm sorry I won't be there. I'll see you at the national championships. Newcastle Electorate: Domestic and Family Violence 83 16:13 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle It's with a heavy heart that I rise for a third time to draw attention to the desperate plight of Newcastle's Jenny's Place Domestic Violence Resource Centre which provides information, advice, referrals and direct support to vulnerable women and children fleeing violence. The centre has survived on corporate and community support for more than a decade but that is about to end. If more funding isn't found it will have to close its doors. I have written to the Minister for Family and Social Services, Senator Ruston, about the urgency of this situation three times. Regretfully, the minister's response couldn't have been more demoralising. First she directed me to two grants which should have been promising, but on further investigation I found the service wasn't eligible for either. The fact that the minister would suggest funding that the service that isn't eligible to access is not only concerning but profoundly disheartening. Jenny's Place needs a very modest $300,000 a year to potentially save the lives of women and children in the Newcastle, Lake Macquarie and Hunter region. But the minister seems completely unwilling even to look at options. Indeed, she said dismissively that frontline domestic violence services aren't in the federal jurisdiction. Well, I expect this will be a surprise to the Prime Minister who, when he was social services minister in 2015 announced $15.7 million towards: … the delivery of 27 specialist family violence services and eight family early intervention alcohol and drug services. Clearly, it's possible to fund frontline services if there is the political will. I have also requested that the minister meet me face-to-face to find a pathway forward, not once but twice now. And twice the minister has been unable to find 15 minutes to talk about this diabolical situation. To say this is frustrating doesn't even come close. I know this government has said it is committed to fighting this terrible scourge and to supporting women and children fleeing violence. I also note that there is funding there, and I reached out to the minister in good faith. But, frankly, the misinformation and unwillingness to meet or lift a finger to save such a critical community service is profoundly distressing. The minister has everything before her to make the right decision. She knows about the unmet need in our region. She has a comprehensive, fully costed proposal for a proven service. I'm sure she has the ministerial discretion, but still she chooses to do nothing. How can this government expect people to trust them when they say that addressing family and domestic violence is a first-order priority and yet they're willing to stand by and let a critical service close? Lyne Electorate: Infrastructure 83 16:16 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne One of the biggest residential and commercial developments ever undertaken in the Manning Valley will now proceed, courtesy of a multimillion dollar investment by the federal coalition government. Earlier this year I announced that the coalition government will commit $8½ million in federal funding towards the construction of new public infrastructure that will trigger Bushland Health Group, a not-for-profit, community based aged-care and retirement provider, to deliver their new vertical retirement living complex. This will trigger a huge public infrastructure development, including upgrading and construction of new roads, culverts, raised boardwalks, a pedestrian cycle bridge, drainage retention, a river stage and viewing platforms and children's play and public art areas. It will also trigger the development of Bushland Health's $25 million new development and create at least 180 jobs during construction and subsequent long-term jobs. It will also trigger other developments in The Figtrees project area, which is a master planned area that has been sitting on the board, ready to go, for almost a decade. I am so pleased that the coalition government is making it all come to fruition. There will be a mix of land uses and it will ensure that there are connections to the Taree CBD, which, as a regional centre, is the hub of commerce and development in the Manning and Great Lakes areas. It will be a delightful public domain. It will make adaptive re-use of old historic buildings—the old dairy factory, the old mill factory and the old railway site. It will put a unique flavour on the mighty Manning River precinct in the heart of the Taree CBD. Heritage qualities won't be lost through the redevelopment, but will really give it another touch. There is space in the development for a dairy and maritime history museum. On the weekend I visited the Cundletown Museum, which has a huge repository of old dairy memorabilia and pieces of cutting-edge dairy development from over 100 years. They've run out of space, so I'm sure they'll find room for more historical bits of dairy equipment and for the history of the Manning. The Manning was the site of major boatbuilding for almost 100 years. The Manning Valley and the river complex is a huge, untapped area. This is one of the most longed for developments in Taree's history. (Time expired) Whitlam Electorate: Disability Services 84 16:19 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam A few weeks ago I met with disability service providers in my electorate. They do essential work in our communities, and today in parliament I want to thank them for their service to the people they care for and the families of those people living with disabilities. They included the Cram Foundation, the Flagstaff Group, Greenacres, Community Gateway and the Disability Trust, coordinated by the Community Industry Group. They are all essential local providers, all staffed by excellent citizens, great workers, leaders and advocates for people working and living with disabilities in my local community. It's often thankless work. It's often invisible work. It's often difficult work. It can be emotionally draining but also very emotionally rewarding. I want to, on behalf of all of the people throughout my electorate of Whitlam, thank those who participate in these services and assist families caring for people with disabilities. It is really critical work in our community. It's not something that I often mention, but before I came to this place I spent many years working as a carer myself, for young kids with profound disabilities and, later on, adults with spinal cord injuries. Because I have done this work, I know how important the National Disability Insurance Scheme is to people with disabilities and their carers. NDIS providers have raised with me concerns regarding the NDIS temporary transition payments. These payments were initially welcomed as a way to help transform the businesses that I've mentioned to operate in a competitive market. However, the NDIA has decided not to include additional funding in plans to cover TTP prices. This means providers are now being forced to negotiate reduced hours of care with participants so they can continue to operate viably. I join with my colleagues in the Labor Party and the shadow minister and call on the government to address this problem immediately. It's a problem in my community, it's a problem for local providers and it's a problem for local people with disabilities, who are now faced with having to renegotiate their arrangements and are potentially facing reduced hours of care. It's unfair and it's also putting an unnecessary administrative burden on the providers. Providers are now going back to their clients saying, 'Prices have increased, but your plans haven't.' This is undermining clients' trust in their providers, the government and the NDIS system. Yesterday I attended a small business event where the minister championed the government's role in paying small businesses' invoices on time. I'd like that approach to flow over to NDIS providers as well, because too many times I've heard stories of providers being out of pocket for many, many months without having their plans paid for in time by the government. Let's get some consistency here as well. (Time expired) Menzies Electorate: Community Events, Ratcliffe, Ms Stephanie 84 16:22 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I had the delight last Saturday to attend the Manningham Seniors Expo, organised by the Chinese Senior Citizens Club of Manningham. This was a very vibrant day of great excitement, singing, dancing, exercise classes, even some karaoke—which I managed to avoid!—and a lot of displays. The Manningham Chinese seniors club is, I think, the largest such Chinese seniors club in the whole country, and it's a very vibrant group of people, who meet weekly and organise a range of activities, including, importantly, this Manningham Seniors Expo, which was held at the Templestowe Baptist Church auditorium on Saturday. I was joined by my state colleague Matthew Guy, the member for Bulleen; the mayor of Manningham, Councillor Paula Piccinini; the deputy mayor, Councillor Anna Chen; and Councillor Dot Haynes. It was a great day and a great tribute to the work of the senior citizens club, led ably by Hardy Shum and his committee, who organised a wonderful occasion. Community events in Menzies continue this weekend. On Friday night, there is the annual Mayoral Ball. Importantly, this is a charity fundraising opportunity for the largest welfare and social services organisation in my electorate, Doncare. They've been around for decades. They do a wonderful job, and it will be a great opportunity to raise some more money for Doncare. Then on Saturday night the Singapore-Malaysia association will be celebrating one of their regular dinners—in this case, to coincide with the Diwali festival. That's always a wonderful occasion for those in my electorate from Malaysia and Singapore. Finally, in this short contribution I congratulate Doncaster East athlete and hammer thrower Stephanie Ratcliffe, who's been named the Manningham Leader's Junior Sports Star for 2019. The 18-year-old has claimed gold medals in the under 18s, under 20s and open age competition. She's represented Australia at the Oceania Athletics Championships and hopes to represent Australia at the Commonwealth Games and the Olympics. The Leader community news sports star program had nominations for more than 66 different sports from athletes ranging from wheelchair basketball and across junior and senior competitions. The hammer thrower Stephanie Ratcliffe is a worthy winner of the Junior Sports Star for 2019 in Manningham. I congratulate her and all those who were nominated in the competition. Macquarie Electorate: National Broadband Network 85 16:25 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie In December 2017, Blaxland resident Tony Kleu contacted me to complain about a delay to the NBN rollout in his street. A freelance journalist who really depends on fast internet for his work, he'd been expecting to connect to the NBN by the middle of 2018, but out of the blue the NBN website had rescheduled his connection to mid-2019. At the time, NBN Co apologised for what they called a glitch in their website and gave assurances that they'd fix the glitch. It turns out it was a glitch—a really big glitch—but the glitch was not that the website was wrong in promising NBN by the middle of 2019, and the NBN certainly didn't get connected in 2018. Tony called me this week to say that the rollout for the NBN for his street is now April to June 2020. Now, I know that NBN Co has hit some unexpected technical issues as it rolls out through the Blue Mountains, but, if the government had tasked NBN to do this right over the last six years, they would have had boots on the ground and been aware of these problems long ago. When I moved back into my Winmalee home in March last year, we were told to expect NBN connection within a couple of months, just as Yellow Rock and Hawkesbury Heights were. Nope; it didn't happen. We are now scheduled for the end of this year; but, of course, we'll believe that when we stop buffering! And Faulconbridge, Sun Valley, Warrimoo and parts of Springwood and Blaxland are now scheduled for some time in the first half of 2020. The impacts of this are far reaching. One of my constituents from Winmalee was likely to lose her job because the delay in the rollout meant her home didn't have the technical capacity for her to do the job. I don't see how the government can pretend to be supporters of small business or self-employment when so many of the people are telling me the problems that NBN is causing them. Anthony Gerber of GuruNow runs a livestreaming internet business from his home in the lower Blue Mountains and has been counting down to NBN being available by the end of this year. He's a start-up with an innovative way to use technology—exactly the sort of business that we know high-speed broadband would enable—but his business growth is constrained because of delays in the NBN, and Anthony's outraged that this week he's learned it's now delayed a further six months with no notice. The same thing happened last year. He was given a 21 September 2018 connection date only for it to be moved a year again at the last minute. This is not a way to support small business. This is, though, what small business is experiencing right across Macquarie. In places like Bowen Mountain residents are facing the same thing: poor landlines, slow or no ADSL and a fob-off from the telcos that 'You'll get NBN soon.' So there is no requirement by them to upgrade communications. It's like being strung along with the 'cheque's in the mail' promise from creditors. (Time expired) Petrie Electorate: Know Your Knockers 85 16:28 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I rise today to speak about two local women in my electorate who are doing amazing things to raise awareness about breast cancer. And they're not just raising awareness; they're actually getting women and sufferers real information that is useful. Katrina and Amy—Katrina Houghton being a friend I've known since the time I was elected—came to the idea of an organisation called Know Your Knockers. After Katrina was diagnosed with breast cancer, they thought, 'We need to provide women with more information.' Katrina says she was devastated and virtually went from coffee dates with friends one day to chemotherapy the next. What she discovered on her journey was a need for more information and support for sufferers to navigate the world of breast cancer, and so the Know Your Knockers booklet—this little pink booklet—was created. A 79-page guide to everything breast cancer related, the booklet features GP advice about where to begin following a diagnosis; hair loss, headwear and wig information; honest recounts about mastectomy surgery; and advice about dealing with chemo. Having gone through the process herself, Katrina understands the impact of helpful and friendly advice from like-minded people and will be distributing the booklet throughout South-East Queensland hospitals for local women, men and their families to use as something to turn to in need. The booklet also details many stories from local experts on what to expect when going through breast cancer. The Morrison government has made a massive contribution in relation to cancer sufferers and their families. Since coming to government in 2013, we have made many developments to improve the lives of patients, such as listing new treatments on the PBS, including Kisqali and Ibrance. These medications are used for the treatment of hormone receptor breast cancer, one of the most common forms of breast cancer and the most fatal. Now they are more affordable and more available for everyone to use. When used in conjunction with others, these medications have the ability to slow the growth of tumour cells and the progression of breast cancers in some patients. Without the PBS subsidy, it could cost patients up to $55,000. We've also invested $32 million to give breast cancer patients access to life-saving MRI and PET scans under Medicare. From 1 November 2019, these services are expected to benefit more than 14,000 patients. Thank you, Katrina and Amy, for the Know Your Knockers booklet. It will help many people. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members constituency statements has concluded. COMMITTEES 86 COMMITTEES Treaties Committee 86 Report 86 16:32 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth I seek leave to speak again without closing the debate. Leave granted. Mr SHARMA 274506 Today I rise to make a statement concerning the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report No. 187. The report contains the committee's review of nine treaty actions, and I would like today to highlight two of these treaties in particular: the prolongation of the MH17 treaty and the Israel double-taxation convention. The MH17 treaty enables Australian involvement in the investigation of the downing and destruction of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine in July 2014, in which 38 Australians were killed. This investigation is administered by the government of the Netherlands, where the involvement of foreign personnel in a criminal investigation requires a treaty level agreement. This is the fifth prolongation of the original treaty of August 2014, and, while the immediate response to the incident has concluded, the investigation and the preparation for the prosecution of the perpetrators in the Dutch criminal system are going. On 19 June 2019, indictments were announced against four individuals for their alleged role in the downing of MH17. The prolongation treaty that the committee considered reflects this new phase in the investigation. Unlike the previous prolongation treaties, this treaty does not specify an expiry date, enabling Australian personnel to participate in the investigation until it is concluded. The Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, and our own Prime Minister recently reaffirmed the collective and unwavering commitment of our country to stand firm on MH17 in defence of our shared values. I quote from their joint press conference: Our two countries continue to stand united and resolute in our commitment to pursuing accountability for this tragedy and to achieving justice for the 289 victims and their loved ones. Prime Minister Rutte was recently made an honorary companion of the Order of Australia by the Governor-General, at Admiralty House, in recognition of his exceptional leadership in establishing the MH17 investigation team. I echo here my own commendation for his actions. The prolongation of the MH17 treaty will allow us to continue to pursue accountability for this tragedy and to help achieve justice for the victims and their loved ones, including the 38 Australians and their families. The Israel double-taxation convention establishes an internationally accepted framework for the taxation of cross-border financial transactions between Australia and Israel. Commercial ties between Australia and Israel have grown markedly over recent years. Two-way trade in merchandise amounted to approximately $1 billion in 2017-18, and, as of June 2019, Israel was the third largest source of foreign company listings in Australia, with 20 Israeli companies, predominantly in technology, listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. The convention will support and strengthen Australia's close economic, trade and commercial relationship with Israel by ensuring that tax residents and companies in both Australia and Israel are not subject to double taxation, while implementing measures to prevent tax minimisation. This agreement will also help strengthen the innovation relationship between our two countries, which is so critical to our common future. Both Australia and Israel are also parties to the OECD's Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, which provides an international framework to prevent taxation treaties from being used for tax minimisation. The Israel double-taxation convention is the latest addition to Australia's network of 44 tax related treaties. The convention is consistent with Australia's model tax convention on income and on capital, which, in turn, is based on an OECD model convention. The committee supports all of the treaties considered in Report 187. The report also contains the committee's review of six minor treaty actions. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the other members of the committee, including the member for Fremantle, who is here today, and the member for Wills, for the constructive manner in which they worked on both this report and Report 186. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House. 16:36 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm glad to make some comments on the tabling of Report 187, which covers six treaties. At the outset, I join the committee chair, the member for Wentworth, in recognising the work of the secretariat in supporting JSCOT through the process, and I thank the member for Wentworth for his comments about two of the treaties covered by the report, in particular the agreement that supports Australia's work in seeking justice in relation to MH17. I want to make some specific observations, however, about the agreement between Australia and Hungary in relation to oil stock contracts. It's the second agreement of this kind; we concluded a similar agreement with the Netherlands last year. These treaties allow us to purchase oil tickets, which are, essentially, options on oil resources. A lot of people in the broader community would ask why we are doing that. We're doing that because, as a member of the International Energy Agency, we're supposed to maintain 90-days equivalent fuel consumption cover, both as a matter of such-sufficiency and as a matter of shared commitment to global oil security. Unfortunately, we are a long way out of compliance, and we have been for some considerable time. In December last year, we had 53 days of annual fuel imports, and our consumption cover at that stage was equivalent to only 18 days of petrol, 22 days of diesel and 23 days of jet fuel. Needless to say, that puts Australia in a position of significant risk, and we shouldn't kid ourselves that our liquid fuel security is anything other than fragile and unusual. If there were an issue affecting oil production or supply in the Middle East, or an incident affecting shipping lanes in our region, we would be in trouble. Australia is extraordinarily dependant on liquid fuels compared to other countries. Yet, we are in a far worse position—indeed, I think we can say a unique position—when it comes to liquid fuel security, compared to other countries. The government's interim report on liquid fuel security, which was provided last April, six months ago, noted: Australia is an outlier in the global community in the way we think about liquid fuel security. When we consider countries of similar economies, most see fuel security as part of their strategic capability and take steps to manage fuel security with that in mind. Some other key points from the interim report include that, putting New Zealand aside, of all IEA members, we are the only net importer of oil that does not hold either industry mandated or government owned stocks. We're the only country in that position. At the same time, growth in liquid fuel demand is much higher in Australia than in similar OECD countries. Our mining and agricultural sectors are 90 per cent reliant on diesel fuel. Our transport sector is 99 per cent reliant on liquid fuels. We're behind other OECD countries when it comes to the uptake of vehicle fuel efficiencies and new vehicle technology. We have the third highest ownership of motor vehicles per capita in the OECD, but the market share of electric vehicles—which, of course, are not dependent on liquid fuels—in Australia is less than one-seventh of the share in Canada and the US. This is an important point: since 2018, there are no Australian flagged and registered fuel tankers. In fact, there are barely a dozen Australian flagged vessels of any kind, which is a serious sovereign capability issue in itself. That is a confronting list, and I don't think that anyone would disagree that it needs a serious, and I would say relatively urgent, government response. I was interested to hear today in question time that the minister for energy appears to be relatively sanguine about our liquid fuel situation. He gave no indication to the House that the government has any particular sense of urgency or any meaningful reform in mind at this stage. The only specific reference he made in answer to a question was that work was currently being done between the Australian government and the IEA to modernise the oil stockpile methodology. I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like we're hoping for an accounting trick to cover up the fact that we don't have enough fuel to get us through a crisis, should one occur. The minister's approach is in stark contrast to the expert view of retired air vice-marshall John Blackburn, who has said: Energy security is a prerequisite for protecting our way of life and therefore I am of the view that markets cannot be held responsible for energy security which is a component of national security; Governments must take that responsibility. Mr Blackburn's summary of Australia's current situation is as follows: The bottom line is that, given the deteriorating security environment in the Asia Pacific region, we are in a strategic warning period for fuel security, we have a flawed NESA— national energy security assessment— that is out of date, there are no Government-owned strategic fuel reserves and no mandated industry fuel stocks. We're a 100 per cent reliant on market forces and there is no Plan B … apart from the helpful advice for everyone to make the "necessary preparations." The final report of the Liquid Fuel Security Review is due by the end of this year—the minister for energy made that point today—and its findings are expected to shape the government's response to our genuinely parlous and fraught circumstances when it comes to liquid fuel security. Through the agreement with Hungary, which is the subject of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 187, we now have the opportunity to purchase further oil tickets. That only adds a few days of additional supply. In essence, this purchase of oil tickets or the opportunity to purchase oil tickets represents a gesture of good faith on Australia's behalf as part of a commitment we've made to the IEA first to purchase these tickets and then to settle a full pathway to compliance by 2026. Needless to say, that second part of the equation, phase 2, is going to be the hard part. But it's long past time that we took steps to address our considerable energy insecurity. We do hear in this parliament a lot about how the safety and the security of the Australian people must always be the government's highest priority. If you were looking at that claim through the prism of liquid fuel security, you'd be astonished to see the circumstances that we are in on the one hand and the lack of government action on the other. We are in a category all of our own. We are a continent nation a long way away from the rest of the world that is extraordinarily reliant on liquid fuels and that has very, very little liquid fuel that we can call on in a crisis. This is at a time when our demand for liquid fuels is growing and other measures that would militate against our current dependence, like the uptake of electric vehicles and other kinds of technology, is often scorned by members of the government rather than being seen as a necessity and an opportunity. In the face of the circumstances in this country in relation to liquid fuel security, which can only be described, from a security point of view, as a market failure—as Mr Blackburn described—like climate change and like plastic pollution, the government is going to have to put aside its blind faith in the market and its blind hatred of so-called red tape and take action. But, based on what we've seen, I won't be holding my breath. Debate adjourned. GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH 88 GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH Address-in-Reply 88 16:46 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I would like to start this speech by acknowledging the traditional owners of all the lands of Australia and their elders, who, with grace and good humour, continue to work to find a way to make the rest of us understand how wonderful our country really is. It is with that same grace that we as a parliament must recognise the First Australians in our Constitution and as the oldest continuing culture on earth. I do not suggest that this will be easy, but great things never are. Our Constitution can no longer be the hallmark of white man's settlement here. The Constitution must recognise those of us who were here first and their deep connection to this land and their culture. It is unjust that we have not yet moved forward with reconciliation. It was 16 August 1975 when Gough Whitlam poured the sands of Wave Hill Station into Lingiari's hand, handing back the land to the Gurindji people. It was 10 December 1992 when Paul Keating stood in front of our First Australians and delivered what quickly became known as the Redfern Address. Mr Keating confronted our national identity, as he did on many occasions and in many ways, and directly addressed the injustices that our First Australians have been subjected to for over 200 years. And it was nearly 12 years ago that this party led the parliament's apology to our First Australians. It is a tragedy that in every single measure our First Australians are dying too soon, educated far less, incarcerated too often and suffer more preventable disease. The numbers show this tragedy in real terms: 64 per cent of the total burden of disease on our First Australians is preventable. The unemployment rate of First Australians is 21 per cent, four times the current non-Indigenous unemployment rate. Over one quarter of incarcerated adults in this country are First Australians and nearly half of all juveniles incarcerated are First Australians. Research by the member for Fenner, Dr Andrew Leigh, showed that over the past three decades the share of First Australians in prison has more than doubled from 1,124 per 100,000 adults in 1990 to 2,481 per 100,000 adults in 2018. In fact, First Australians are more likely to be incarcerated than African Americans. This is appalling. In 2017, suicide was a leading cause of death among our First Australian children aged five to 17. In that same year, one quarter of Australian children who died by suicide were First Australians. And one in 10 households in public housing has Indigenous people living it. It is the social impact of these raw numbers that should break all Australians' hearts. Eight Indigenous Australians have been members of this place. We celebrate their achievements, but it is the Constitution of this land that must also celebrate our First Australians. That's why we need to start with recognition of our First Australians in the Constitution. The injustices have continued in many different ways, both directly and indirectly. But there is no question: our First Australians have been, and continue to be, subject to cultural and systemic discrimination. It is my view, and it should be that of all in this place, that this discrimination will see no achievable end until we accomplish constitutional recognition. This can only happen by doing what Whitlam, Keating and Rudd have done: confronting our national identity. No-one is elected to this place without the support of many, many people, and I'd like to take a few moments to recognise just some of those people who've helped and sustained me over the last three years. I acknowledge all the volunteers and branch members who happily volunteered to letterbox, doorknock, phone-bank and spend three weeks on prepoll for our party and me. I am humbled and grateful. I thank them for taking the time to speak to me or email me, because it's their feedback which makes my contribution in this place and our community. I don't have time to name even some of you, but know I am very grateful for everything you do. I especially thank my staff. They've supported me over the last three years. To Nathan, Christy, Sharon, Samantha, Liam, Caroline, Harriet and the newly arrived Alex and Nicholas: I appreciate very much your support and care for our community. I would also like to acknowledge Loretta Fletcher, who, as the master of booth rosters, made sure that every one of our 50 booths was staffed. I also extend my special thanks to Stella, Ethan, Daniel and George. The elected members in my part of the world are great, real people working as a team to get our residents what they deserve. I acknowledge them for all their support: the member for Macarthur, Dr Mike Freelander; Paul Lynch; Anoulack Chanthivong; Greg Warren; and also the Liverpool, Campbelltown and Fairfield Labor councillors. When we are elected to this place, our families are not; however, they bear the burden of our roles. We all understand the toll it takes on our families. To Larry, my husband: I thank you for your continuing unwavering support and for fostering an environment for me so that I can pursue my dreams of advocacy for our most disadvantaged. To my children, Matthew, Christopher and Andrew; their partners, Chantell, Kate and Siobhan; and my grandchildren, Meaghan and Horatio: you are all the loves of my life, and your support, comfort and counsel is everything I could wish for. I'm proud of you and love you all and I thank you always for your love and support and for giving me the time away from family events. Governing is about choices; I recognise this. The people of Werriwa need a government that is making choices for them. Unfortunately, this government seems to have no intention of doing so. This was made clear during the election campaign, when the Liberal Party made no commitments to the people of Werriwa. In fact, I received numerous representations from schools, businesses, local community groups and individuals, all with serious concerns about the way this country was heading. Schools were seeking much-needed funding for classrooms and infrastructure for learning. The community of Middleton Grange was needing road connections to reduce congestion on their local roads. I had, and continue to have, countless constituents contact me about the extensive issues they were having accessing the NDIS or achieving funding for their assistive technology services. Many constituents have been waiting for the rollout and repairs to the national broadband network in the many areas of Werriwa where the connections fail to deliver anywhere near the minimum standard. But the Liberal Party made zero commitments on these to my constituents. On the contrary, Labor committed to these people that, if elected, we would address all of those issues. With the construction of the Western Sydney Airport now underway, this important piece of infrastructure needs planning and delivery that shows insight and forward thinking. We have one chance to get this right. Getting this right means that the airport should be connected to the rest of the region. There should be, and there needs to be, connections not only to the north of the airport but to the south as well so that it is truly part of a 30-minute city and so that that concept doesn't stay a pipedream on paper. Infrastructure Australia has identified the need for the railway and a pipeline for fuel. We need to keep the 65 trucks a day off the road. We need to get the airport right, but, more than that, the infrastructure needs to be forward looking and not a patchwork quilt of fixes. It needs to be available when the residents move into the new suburbs of Bardia and Edmondson Park. They need schools, childcare and access to healthcare services. How can it possibly be that, in 2019, brand-new developments are being built in Sydney that don't have access to the sewerage system? Gough Whitlam would have been appalled that a member for Werriwa, 50 years later, is still advocating for sewerage provision. In Austral, brand-new homes are being built without sewerage. So here we are in 2019 in metropolitan Sydney and we're returning to the use of septic tanks. It is beyond belief that in a modern, wealthy country developers can build brand new homes in the country's largest city that are not on the sewerage grid. We hear and talk of the 30-minute city. The revelation recently that trains on the T8 line run late three days out of five in the evening peak is preposterous. Only two lines are that bad, and it needs to be fixed. Actually, in 1975 it was quicker to get from Liverpool to the city than it is now by about 10 minutes. What other options do the people of Werriwa have? The lack of parking and public transport to and from our railway stations place them in nearly impossible situations. Station parking in the Werriwa, Macarthur, Fowler and McMahon regions is full by 7 am—most days it's even earlier. During the state election promises were made that Edmondson Park in particular would receive $40 million for a new parking station, and it would be opened by mid-2020. With only $212,000 in the New South Wales budget for planning and community consultation, the government is putting the people of my electorate last again, and failing to support the growth in this region—despite Western Sydney Airport construction moving ahead. The community has spoken loud and clear: they need parking to make south-western Sydney liveable. I've said, and the community continues to say, we needed this parking when the station opened eight years ago. Now the situation is a sad joke and the promises made by the state government must be fulfilled. I've had hundreds of responses to my petition on this issue, and I'll continue to advocate for this most important infrastructure. The most fulfilling, yet saddest, part of my job is meeting and assisting constituents with issues they are having with Centrelink or the NDIS. In a rich, wonderful country like ours there should be a safety net for people with disabilities. We need real action; people with disabilities need real action. The late Stella Young, one of the most prominent disability advocates, once said: No amount of smiling at a flight of stairs has ever made it turn into a ramp. No amount of standing in the middle of a bookshelf and radiating a positive attitude is going to turn all those books into braille. This government knows that people with a disability are waiting: they're waiting for funding, they're waiting for reviews and they're waiting for support. While I recognise the NDIS has succeeded for many of my constituents, it has also failed too many. There is a systematic lack of resourcing for the NDIS. It's outrageous to think that a person with a disability is waiting for more than three months to have their plan review, receive no outcome and are then forced to go and get quotes again. This is all caused by the government's chronic under-resourcing of the agency, and it seems that not a lot is being done to fix it. Time does not allow me to do a rollcall of the litany of policy failures that my constituents face every day; however, I do recognise that for some the NDIS works as it was meant to, and the choice the scheme is providing is giving people with a disability the support and choices they need. Social security is just that: it provides a safety net and security to people when they most need it. But it is failing some of those people, and to fail those people has compound effects. The processing time and bureaucratic nature of Centrelink in processing of pensions, especially the disability support pension, seems ludicrous. While the spending of taxpayer money should be under scrutiny, Centrelink has told one of my constituents, who has battled mental illness for nearly 30 years—since she was 13—that she hasn't put enough effort into therapies so that she can get better. This is a disgrace! Her medical professionals have said that although she has been compliant and tried, her anxiety and other issues make it impossible for her to work full time. Like the vast majority of people with a disability, she tells me she would love to work and has found herself full-time jobs on many occasions. But, unfortunately, she cannot sustain the pressure of a full-time job and finds her illness gets worse to the point that she again can't work—and yet Centrelink says she hasn't tried enough. One of the biggest challenges facing our healthcare system is the cost of chronic disease. It's not only the direct cost, but the associated health issues and complications that arise if you do have a chronic disease. Werriwa has one of the highest rates of prevalence for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes in Australia. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the National Diabetes Services Scheme has provided people with diabetes much-needed consumables such as insulin, pen needles, syringes, blood-testing strips and insulin pumps at discounted rates for a number of years. Diabetes is an expensive condition for people who have it and their families. It's extremely expensive for governments and healthcare systems when complications arise. I call on the government to provide people with diabetes access to the new technology faster on the NDSS. This is technology like constant glucose monitoring or flash glucose monitoring and has been proven to give people with diabetes greater control and reduce complications—complications that end up costing our healthcare system more in the long term. CGM and FGM are technologies that will help improve quality of life with people with type 1 diabetes, not just those under 21 years old. Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, in partnership with Diabetes Australia and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation of Australia, has published unequivocal data on this. For every person with diabetes, the federal government spends $3,468. Complication arising from poor glucose control means the federal government pays up to $16,698 per patient with complications. Why is it that this government is not making a clear decision to fund both CGM and FGM on the National Diabetes Services Scheme? The decision is clear: as a government, it can save people from the horrors of diabetes complications and save Medicare from the horrors of a budget blowout. The government must make the investment and allow all people with type 1 diabetes access to CGM and FGM on the National Diabetes Services Scheme no matter their age. It's an investment that will save lives and money. Access to health care has been the hallmark of our society for decades. Affordable, accessible, readily-available health care should be what this government strives to continue to provide to the people of Australia. But there are 60 drugs that have already received positive recommendations for listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee that have not yet been listed on the PBS. Patients are going without medicine or risking financial futures just to get the treatments they need. I have constituents who have visited me to tell me their unacceptable situations. For instance, there is a pensioner couple who must decide each fortnight which one of them gets the pain relief because they can't afford for both of them to be on their pain medication. One woman told me of choosing between food or her prescription medication. This is unacceptable in Australia. All Australians deserve access to health care in an affordable and readily accessible way. This government is failing to provide Australians that access—access that Australia has been proud of and renowned around the world for for many decades. This government and this parliament must make sure that the programs designed to support our most vulnerable Australians actually meet their goal. This government and this parliament have a chance to recognise our First Australians in the Constitution and continue the work of reconciliation. They have a chance to make sure the most vulnerable members of our community have access to the services and support systems they need. They have the chance to make Australia healthier and make sure our health system no longer fails people suffering from chronic diseases. I will continue to advocate for all this for the people of Werriwa. We're a proud community but cannot continue to put up with the government inaction on the serious issues we're facing. I will do everything I can to support this parliament, protect the human rights of all Australians, support and protect those in our community who are vulnerable and recognise all who have made great their country that we call our shared home. I too will work tirelessly to achieve better outcomes for all the people in my electorate. 17:04 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to explain to the House what it is the coalition government has been delivering into my electorate of Hinkler in the last two terms in particular that I have been the member. For some context, I think I should explain to the House and to those who might be listening some of the challenges that we have seen in my electorate over a long period of time, how what we are doing is actually working, what we are delivering on the ground and the great results that we have seen, particularly in the last 12 months. First and foremost, my electorate of Hinkler is just under 4,000 square kilometres. It runs from Bundaberg to Hervey Bay. It includes what I consider to be God's country—all the local villages, the seaside villages and the towns. There are lots of beaches, lots of wonderful places to go, visit and stay. One of the chronic challenges we have had over a long period of time is high unemployment and in particular high levels of youth unemployment. We continue to address this through a range of programs, including the Hinkler Regional Deal and the cashless debit card—a tough but necessary policy. We do need to continue to do more to ensure that into the future those changes are long-term and they are systemic, particularly around our regional economy. It is good news locally. Whilst we still have a number of challenges around what happens in our local region, particularly around the challenge of income, the per capita income for each individual—according to local government reports across the country—is the lowest of any area in regional Australia, or in Australia itself, at just approximately 32½ thousand dollars. We know that we have those challenges. We know that between myself and yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, we fight it out for the highest number of pensioners in each region. I think at the moment we hold the title. So whilst it's a wonderful place to retire; it's also a wonderful place to work, to live and to raise a family, but we need to ensure that those jobs into the future are provided. The regional jobs and investment package which we have delivered has been substantial. It has meant that there has been private investment, particularly for someone like Bundaberg Brewed Drinks under the Regional Growth Fund. Macadamias Australia, which we inspected just last Friday, is an over a $20 million facility which will ensure more jobs into the local region. It includes an opportunity for tourism. The tourism piece, I think, is very, very strong in terms of future growth. We're famous, of course, for Bundaberg Rum in Bundaberg. The Bundaberg Rum facility delivers some 80,000-plus visitors into our region. I will defer, of course, to the member for Calare who is in the chamber, who I believe also has a contribution with regard to his electorate and what else is happening. Thank you. 17:07 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I'm very grateful for the member for Hinkler for that contribution and his deferral. I too would like to make a contribution to the address-in-reply, and it comes, obviously, after the recent federal election where I was very grateful and humbled by the result that we were able to achieve in that electorate. The margin is now at 63 and a third. I would like to thank all of those in our electorate who supported our campaign and, indeed, who supported us at the ballot box. As I said, it's a very humbling result and I'm very grateful for it. The hard work has already commenced in this term of government and we have a lot on. I would like to not only thank the electors of Calare and acknowledge them, but also thank the many other people who supported our campaign and all of the volunteers in particular, who gave up so much time, particularly in pre poll which—as we know, in some areas of our electorate it ran for three weeks, which was very hard on volunteers. There was a huge commitment right across our electorate in central western New South Wales to get those booths manned. But it wasn't just manning the booths, there was a huge amount of work that went on behind the scenes both before election day and also after election day. I want to thank all of our volunteers. I'd also like to acknowledge our electorate council for their work including the chair, Peter Pilbeam, who was the chair before the election and now after. I'd also like to acknowledge the other members of the executive at that time including our vice chairs, Sandy Walker and David Veness; Janelle Culverson, who was secretary; the treasurer, Chris Messenger; the membership development manager, Bruce McNeilly and the delegates to women's council, Janelle Culverson and Annie Hazelton. I'm very grateful for their hard work, their support and their wise counsel. I really appreciate it. I'd also like to thank all of those members who served on campaign committees, as well as the branch chairs. At the time in Orange it was Warwick Baines, in Mudgee it was Sandy Walker—it is now Lloyd Coleman—in Lithgow it was Peter Pilbeam, in Bathurst it was Sam Farraway and in Wellington it was Pip Smith. I'd also like to acknowledge John Holland for his work. Even though I can't name all of the members, because there are just so many who contributed to this campaign in ways great and small, I'd also like to acknowledge Kay Martin, National Party legend from Lithgow, for all of her wonderful hard work. I also need to thank my hardworking staff, who really help in so many ways. It's not just at election time when staff are working. They work all through a term of government. Their commitment and their service to the people of Calare also needs to be thanked and acknowledged. They include Rosie Pritchard; Sophie Hancock; Xanthie Thomas; Ardin Beech; Paula Elbourne; Sarah Hayes; Maree Ireland; Sam Harma, who was working in our office at the time; our hardworking departmental liaison officer, Caroline Galea; Kirsty Stokes; Rhonda Taylor; and all of our volunteers, who came out in the weather—rain, hail or sunshine—and put the effort in to help secure what was a healthy swing towards us. As we look across what the Nationals achieved at the election, all members were returned, most of them got increases in their margins, and some transitions were made that were potentially difficult. The doomsayers were talking down the prospects of the Nationals. It's not easy to fight an election in drought, it must be remembered, but we were able to do it. I'd like to acknowledge the organisational wing of the party and, in particular, Ben Hindmarsh, the federal director, and his team for all of their help and support. We're certainly very grateful. I should also mention the trustees of our federal electorate council, Bruce Reynolds and Tony McRae. These are very exciting times in central western New South Wales. Even though the drought is biting very hard and the effects have been absolutely devastating, there are very exciting projects going on, one of which is the Charles Sturt University medical school. It's a $22 million initiative which will be training doctors in the bush for practice in the bush. You know, Deputy Speaker Rick Wilson, how important that is to country communities. It's due to open in 2021. Construction on the new facilities has already started. We worked very hard to secure it, but it is going to make a real difference to the lives of people in country New South Wales, as those young doctors, trained in a curriculum designed for practice in the bush, will basically be the next generation of medical professionals and doctors. They will go through to make a wonderful contribution to country Australia. We're very excited about that. We've also got the new research facility which is being developed at Orange, a further $18 million development. The sky's the limit for the work that that institute will carry out into health outcomes for country people. If you combine the two—even if you take them separately—they are a game changer for country Australia and New South Wales, in particular. We've also got the exciting project which is the $16 million investment in the new crossing at Dixons Long Point, between Orange and Mudgee. This is going to link these two vitally important regions. People have been pushing for this road since the days of the gold rush, and everyone has said that it can't be done and it won't be done. Well, the first tranche of funding has been released under the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative. The sign-off has happened, so it's ready to go. That funding is waiting to go, and once it's drawn down by Mid-Western Regional Council we should have surveyors on the ground and also an identification of the spot for the new bridge across the Macquarie River. That work will be commencing by the end of the year, once that tender goes out when the money is drawn down. So these are very exciting times. Of course, we have our project at Mount Panorama—the second race track at Mount Panorama, which has seen a $12.5 million investment to date by the federal government. Again, this is a game changer for our regional economy. It is not only going to encourage motorsport all year round at Bathurst, which is already the home of motor racing in Australia; we believe there will be a motor industry developing around Bathurst on the back of this development. It is a very ambitious project that Bathurst Regional Council is pushing, and I know that mayor Bobby Bourke and his team are right behind it with general manager David Shirley. The previous mayor, Graeme Hanger, was also a great supporter of this project. I attended this year's Bathurst 1000 just a week or two ago, and they had over 200,000 people through the gate over four years. This is a world-class sporting event that gains an international audience. It is Australia's premier motor racing event. I would even suggest that it's bigger than the Australian Grand Prix, and that's taking nothing away from that wonderful event. The tender has gone out for the track design, and we're very excited about what the future holds for that particular project. It's not all about sports, though. Aged care is also vitally important to our communities in country New South Wales and Australia, and I was delighted not too long ago to announce a $1.5 million federal government investment in an intergenerational learning facility that will be built with the Maranatha House aged-care facility in Wellington. This is going to be a national first, and the folks at Maranatha House have done their research. They've taken the world's best practice, and they're going to be building what is, essentially, a preschool that will have huge benefits not only for the residents of Maranatha House but also for the kids who are going to go to the preschool. I'd like to make special mention of the folks at Maranatha, because I was there for the sod turning for this wonderful project. They're going to come from all over Australia to see this when it's up and running. I'd like to congratulate the CEO of Maranatha House, Debra Matheson, the chair, John Trounce, and the vice chair, Terry Frost. I'd like to thank Linda Sarsfield, and also Ghaffaru Ddin for his work. I'd also like to acknowledge Sajad Khan, Kirk Gleeson, Tim Smith and Irfan Sagri for their contributions. The Lithgow headspace has also opened in the wonderful community of Lithgow, and this follows a very important investment of over $1 million. The community felt very strongly about this. In recent times there have been some devastating examples of young people taking their lives in the community of Lithgow and its surrounding districts. It has been a huge cause of concern and anguish. The pain has been immense in that area, and the community were crying out for support. That was delivered under the watch of the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, and headspace has now opened its doors. It is going to make a real difference to the lives of young people in the Lithgow area. And so I'd like to make mention of some of the folks who are behind the Lithgow headspace, including Bryan Hoolahan, the Executive Manager of Governance and Quality; Peter Rohr; Andrew Paul; Paul Koscar; Clare Knight; Alyssa Fitzgerald; Emily Roberts; Gerrit Williemse; Andrew Meenahan; and Bonita Bassett for their important contributions as well. Over in the Blayney Shire, we've got some exciting things happening. As I said, this drought is really hurting across all of New South Wales and our areas are no exception, but, despite this, we do have some wonderful community projects being developed which are also stimulating local economic activity. One of them is the Blayney CentrePoint project, which is an indoor sporting complex in the Blayney Shire. We were able to secure $1.9 million in federal funding for that project through the Building Better Regions Fund, and construction of the revamped Blayney pool is now underway. I was out there not too long away, and we were actually walking in the pool. But they are major improvements, and this 50-year-old pool facility is going to be brought into the modern age, because it was getting a little bit old and we live in a cold climate out in the central West, as you know, Deputy Speaker, so it's very important to have these indoor sporting facilities, including the heated pool. I'd like to acknowledge some important folks out at Central West, including the Mayor Scott Ferguson and all of his councillors; Rebecca Ryan, who's the general manager; Mark Dicker; Gordon Maccallum; Charlie Harris; and the hardworking pool staff—their patient pool staff at the moment because their facility is being upgraded. I like to acknowledge Paul Masters, Tianna Baker, Katrina Chapman, Emma Fenwich, Carissa Garside, Holly Hopkins, Craig Morgan, William Schmarr, Kathryn Toole, Hayden Webb-Pratt and Lanai Whittaker, and from Hines Constructions, who are doing a wonderful job out there, Grahame Tilston, who's the site manager, a man with vast experience; Shaun Van Uum; and Alan Vermeer, who's the senior project manager. Out at Oberon Golf Club, we've also got some exciting developments. The golf club was able to secure $47,339 under the federal government's Community Sport Infrastructure program. The club used that money to extend its course watering system in order to improve playing conditions and it's also installed a solar power system that will take the pressure off their monthly energy bill. There are about 200 members at Oberon Golf Club. I was up there not too long ago. I'd like to thank all of the members, including Mick English, Katie Graham, Eric Whalan and Rod Hammett for all of their work on that particular project, and I'd like to acknowledge Barry Lang for his work in helping to secure this funding as well and his work for the club generally. Over at Wallerawang, there are also some exciting things happening with the Wallerawang Community and Sports Club. They've been trying to get the extension to that club completed for years and years, and they kept doing small pieces of work to keep their DA current. But I think they were getting to the stage when they were wondering whether the work would ever really be completed. For example, they put a new fence around it and they do a bit of work on the site just to keep things moving. I was delighted to be able to announce a little while ago a $480,000 grant to actually complete that extension work. It's a true community hub, and it's going to make a real difference to the fabric of the wonderful community of Wallerawang. I'd like to acknowledge the secretary and manager, Stephen Jackson, for his work and his passion for the project; Joe Fraser, from Fraser's Constructions, who donated the earthworks; Greg Machin Plumbing for the wonderful work that they are doing out there; Ben Lane Building; John Gordon Electrical; Chris Muldoon bricklaying; and all of the club members for their ongoing support. It has been a true community effort and it's been a privilege to be a part of that, especially after years of heartbreak in not being able to get that project completed. There was also $117,000 secured through the community support and infrastructure grant program. East Molong Tennis Club was the recipient of this funding. It has resurfaced two courts, upgraded lighting and replaced the tennis posts. The courts have been completed, but because they are sand based they need watering in and this hasn't been possible yet because of the difficult conditions we're facing with drought. But, hopefully, that work can be completed. I'm looking forward to visiting the club in the next couple of weeks for a hit and to inspect the upgrades. This just shows how badly this drought is biting and the effect that it's having not only at the farm gate but right throughout our country communities and into businesses and our sporting clubs as well. I'd like to thank and acknowledge Andrew Hicks, who is the president; Ben Brown, Hayley Glynn and also Stacey Carthew, who is the secretary at the club. Well done for their advocacy. And over in Oberon there was a $1.5 million grant to finally get work underway on the Oberon Tarana Heritage Railway. That was wonderful news during the election campaign. I'd also like to acknowledge the work of the committee, including president, Greg Bourne; vice president, Martyn Salmon; John Brotchie; Graham Williams; David McMurray; and Ken Lingabala. Well done to you all. We also have many other projects, and time doesn't permit me to name them all, but they include the Glen Willow complex at Mudgee. That received $6.95 million under the Building Better Regions Fund. Congratulations to Des Kennedy and all of the sporting groups who pushed for that, including the Mudgee Rugby Union Club and Luke Humphries; the Mudgee Sports Council's Peter Mitchell; junior rugby league; and all of the contractors who were involved in that. I should also mention the mayor, Des Kennedy, and his team of councillors, who have been very passionate about this project, and also GM Brad Cam over there at the Mid-Western Regional Council. It was a wonderful and humbling result in the electorate of Calare, and the hard work is well and truly underway. 17:27 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Labor is the party of the social safety net. But Labor is also the party of prosperity. We in Labor quintessentially believe that in the rich, wealthy nation of ours in which we live there is no reason why people can't have access to good health care, why they can't have access to a quality education and why they can't have a roof over their heads and a job to go to as well. We are the party of the fair go—a safety net—and of unlocking prosperity. These are the things that fundamentally make up our party, and these Labor values and principles remain anchored in the core beliefs we express. In many ways, Bob Hawke is seen as the father of the modern Labor Party, and was certainly the architect of the social safety net as we now know it. Along with Paul Keating, he ensured that Australia is a modern and open economy, not a closed and isolated island. Labor, under Hawke and Keating, always ensured a proper social safety net, for growth is stronger when it is shared, and when wages and living standards rise everyone in the community should benefit. It is our social safety net that actually enables our economic growth and prosperity too. Those on the government benches have a capricious way of claiming that they are the party of the quiet Australians—the everyday Australian. But I think that since the election the Australian people are starting to see through that. Those on the land, long-suffering from drought, are certainly starting to see through this government's lack of any plan. This government needs to learn that good economic policy is good social policy and vice versa. In my view, good economics and good social policy are two sides of the same coin; they are not two distinct and separate matters. Too often we see the way in which people like to put economic policy over here and an interest in social policy over there, but that is not the right way to look at the policy agenda. The government needs to grapple with the sorts of plans that our nation needs and desires. The government is fixated on seeing good economics as paying for our welfare system because it sees good social policy— A government member: How else do you pay for it? Mr KEOGH 249147 as a cost, not as what it is and what a social safety net can be, an investment in ensuring an increase in our productivity. The government's approach promotes a lopsided sense of growth and lopsided inequality, because the government doesn't understand that these two things are actually intricately linked, as the member opposite just blatantly pointed out through his terrible interjection, highlighting his lack of grasp of this essential idea. When we get the investment in social policy right it isn't a cost to the economy. It is a way of helping our economy continue not only to grow but to deliver for Australians, to make sure that we reduce inequality, to make sure that everyone is a beneficiary of economic growth in this nation. Part of this is linked to how the greatness of a nation is judged by the way that it treats its most vulnerable. There are a few issues here that I would like to canvass. For instance, when it comes to Indigenous incarceration we are neither a strong nation nor a great one. This is something that we can and must do something about, because we must ensure that Australia is indeed a great and strong nation. Research by Save the Children in Western Australia has found that one in four young people in detention are from Perth's south-eastern suburbs, predominantly the area that I represent in the seat of Burt. In recognition of this shocking statistic, the Youth Partnership Project was founded with the belief that children are not born bad but, rather, are born into complex environments that can lead to significant behavioural problems. The Youth Partnership Project model provides an early targeted support for young people aged eight through to 12 with complex needs by working together with the police force, with state government agencies, with local government and with community services to identify young people, many of whom are of Indigenous background and who are at risk of going down the path towards juvenile justice and, ultimately, juvenile detention. From this model has come the Armadale Youth Intervention Partnership. This place-based intensive intervention recognises that merely being tough on crime does little to remedy the causes of crime and, in particular, does little to stop crime from occurring in the first place. This program is now being expanded from Armadale into Gosnells, but both programs are fighting to make sure that they can continue with their funding. In WA we spend something in the order of over $50 million a year on juvenile detention. Imagine if some of that money were being invested into programs like AYIP, into early intervention programs which they are doing in AYIP. Imagine seeing that expand and being further implemented across the spectrum of our society. Imagine being able to invest in teaching families and work with families and intervene to assist them with issues such as alcohol consumption while pregnant; being able to deal with issues that concern them, such as abuse and drug abuse; being able to assist with mental health; and being able to teach more about fetal alcohol spectrum disorder when so many of those who are in detention are affected by that very, very difficult issue. In those cases, we would be spending a lot less on corrective services and, instead, gaining a lot more from the people that we have helped, not to mention decreasing crime rates. There is an opportunity right here for government to change the story of people's lives from one of poverty and of being another generation that's reliant on welfare and public housing to one of people being able to get a job, being able to increase their education and ultimately being able also to pay taxes. More people healthy, giving back to society and working results in more taxpayers being able to pay tax, more people who are not reliant on a welfare payment from the government, people who are contributing to the improvement of our society. Of course, the reduction in crime improves society for everybody as well. For every day that a young person is kept out of juvenile detention we save in Western Australia over $800. Given that approximately one in four of the juvenile detainees come from my electorate, the government investment in the Armadale Youth Intervention Partnership program is paying huge dividends. It will not have to spend as much on police, courts and corrective services whilst it will gain a lot more from the people who are being helped, not just the individual children but their families as well. We need to provide more opportunities for at-risk kids not just in my electorate but across the entire country. These are the sorts of programs that are really important to our community. They are critical to how together we can change their story and the story of all of our communities. It's up to all levels of government, though, to support these programs, to connect the grassroots programs to organisations that are able to work on the front line, to prevent the entry of a child into our juvenile justice system. Similarly on the theme of investment, it's good economic policy to invest in education. The higher the level of education of our students, the more our children and society will thrive here in Australia and across the world stage, and it all starts with early intervention. In my electorate, Challis Community Primary School has recognised that children in the area were starting school lacking some of the most basic language and social skills, and these developmental vulnerabilities were significantly higher for that cohort than across the state or national average. The Challis model brings together high-quality early childhood education prior to preschool and parenthood early intervention programs to complement early learning and address the barriers to child development, along with family support for a consistent scaffolding to optimise a child's progress. This system starts from birth and is delivered through a single point-of-entry contact at the school, ensuring that children start school ready to learn and are supported through their early schooling. The results have been amazing in such a short period of time. Students that have been part of the program are outperforming their statewide and national peers by up to 95 per cent. But we need more critical mass, not just one school in one community. We need a critical mass of schools within the community that are delivering on this approach, lifting the average performance and the overall outcomes for our entire community together. And we need this to flow through all educational levels, not just at the beginning of primary school and before. Recently I have spoken in this place about the introduction in Western Australia of Australia's first nationally recognised qualification in automation. This program will not only be available to TAFE students who want to learn technical skills in automation or to upskill their current blue-collar skills in the resources sector; I'm really proud to share that this program will be piloted for year 11 and 12 students in selected high schools across Western Australia, including Burt's own Cecil Andrews College. Over the last few years as a federal MP, I've had the opportunity to observe the fantastic work at Cecil Andrews College in leading the way in STEM education. They're the only P-TECH school in WA and have had some fantastic success on the national stage with robotics and direct industry-engagement programs. It's programs like these that will train our next generation of miners, explorers and people across so many industries. The resources industry is one that drives the WA economy. Indeed, it drives the whole Australian economy. Unfortunately, in WA our unemployment rate is still higher than we would like it to be. It is higher than the national average. We must create more jobs, but we also need to upskill individuals to have the best opportunities for not just the work of the future but, quite frankly, the work of today. These new courses, an initiative of the WA state government, working together with our resources industry, will be the first to provide education pathways into autonomous operations to further improve our prospects in growing our economy, our resources industry and, crucially, the jobs that are linked to it. I'm sad to say that in the federal sphere this government's efforts are significantly lacking. After years in witness protection, Michaelia Cash in August was let out of hiding to acknowledge the Liberal government's failure to support the skills and vocational education and training sector over the last six years of this government. In The West Australian newspaper the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash, conceded: We need a coordinated national approach to ensure Australian workers have the skills necessary for the jobs of today and the future. The Liberal government's failure to support skills training during its six-year tenure is what has resulted in this. It has left our nation with a gaping hole in the skills that we need for the future. The failure to have a national approach to VET not only impedes our further development in the defence industry and in resource projects across the country but robs Australians who want work the opportunities to upskill and retrain and those who are coming out of school and want to get their first jobs. The government's lack of action on skills over the last six years only provides more excuses for businesses to use 457-style labour at the expense of local workers. If the government were serious about supporting skills in this country, it would not have cut $3 billion from TAFE and training. Is it any wonder that wage growth is virtually non-existent and that the Australian economy is withering on the vine under this government? This is not a plan to ready our nation for new challenges. This new skills package is a fig leaf over the government's wanton disregard in the last six years for growing Australia's skilled workforce and, quite frankly, over the government's disdain for our public TAFE system. In addition to education and working with vulnerable children, our economy also needs to see an investment in infrastructure. Typically when we talk about infrastructure, there's the importance of congestion busting to create economic growth by investing in our transport infrastructure. And this is very important. But, as I said earlier today in the House of Representatives, unfortunately, in the state of Western Australia right now, we see a situation where it's not about trying to get the government to bring forward expenditure, as much as we'd love to see that happen. What we see is a failure of government to get on with the job of processing approvals through its own departments that would allow shovel-ready projects right now to actually start. There are 6,000 jobs on ice in WA right now because there is a billion-dollar pipeline of infrastructure investment that could be happening if it weren't being held up by this government. It's also about making sure that we invest in social infrastructure, because it's not just about transport. It's about making sure we have regional sporting facilities. It's about making sure that we have social community hubs. It's about making sure that we have all of the different pieces that go together to make our communities thrive and come together. What we've seen over years now is an underinvestment in these crucial pieces of social infrastructure in our outer urban and suburban areas of Australia. What commitment have we seen to that by the government? They cancelled the program that used to fund this sort of infrastructure. That is a terrible indictment of this government. It's a terrible indictment of the health and the social capital of our communities. But, of course, the government only see social policy as a cost to the economy instead of the investment that it actually is. Then, of course, we've got the area of health. I need to make this point, because it seems to be lost on government so often. They only ever talk about the importance of a good economy to pay for things. Yes, a good economy pays for things. It's how we have Medicare. It's how we have an NDIS. It's how we have so many good things in this nation. But the critically important thing, especially about a program like Medicare, is that it is an investment in the capacity of Australians to work. We, as a nation, come together to make sure that Australians are as healthy as they possibly can be, because it means that they can stay in their job. It means that employers are not having to pay for their health care, as we see in other nations, which becomes an even bigger drag on the economy. Instead, we come together, we make sure that no-one is left behind when it comes to their health care, and we provide that through Medicare. It is fundamentally important that this is what happens. But, of course, since the government anointed their fearless leader over 12 months ago, GP costs have increased, on average, to a record high of nearly $40 per visit. They talk about how many more visits people are having to the doctor, failing to realise that the way in which they're currently running the Medicare system churns people through the system. They have to go more often because doctors will only see them for a shorter period of time. It's a very unfortunate situation. It is not the way that we should be investing in our public health system to make sure that people are healthy and that we're proactively dealing with issues in the primary healthcare space. I'm sure, Mr Deputy Speaker Rick Wilson, that you, among anyone in this chamber right now, would understand the importance of primary health care as a way of making sure that we don't have the even higher costs of having to deal with people through our hospital system. One of the other areas in which we have seen that good social policy investment can help our economy is the area of superannuation. When it comes to superannuation, as Paul Keating told the ABC's 7.30 earlier this year, super is forced savings; it's compulsion. And you run the risk that, given the option, people won't have an incentive to save. But some on the government benches say that people can't afford superannuation and they certainly can't afford to see it pushed up. Well, Mr Keating says we can't afford not to. So does the superannuation industry. And they are right. It's really unfortunate, I have to say, that we have seen comments from members on the government benches that have been critical of the way in which we will see the contribution to superannuation increasing. One of the things that they miss, of course, is that the development of the superannuation industry in Australia by compulsory forced savings not only has meant that we have made sure that millions of Australians have access to savings when they retire—money they can spend as they see fit, something you would think the Liberal Party would be very happy about—but also has seen the development of a huge financial services industry here in Australia. We manage more funds than nearly any other country around the globe as a result of this superannuation system. The government tries to say that increasing superannuation, compulsory savings, will somehow cut into pay rises. It says we won't see the pay rises that it says should be flowing to workers. Now, we want to see pay rises flowing to workers and, quite frankly, this government is doing nothing at all to see that happen. But the thing they miss—I remember all too clearly, from only a few years ago, when we saw increases from 9.25 per cent to 9.5 per cent—is that, quite frankly, at that stage, when many businesses had wage freezes on their books, if it hadn't been for those increases in superannuation then there wouldn't have been any increase to the remuneration for those companies at all. Quite frankly, these could be the only wage rises some people in Australia receive, and they're only getting them because we're seeing the mandated increase of superannuation savings, which will help those people well into the future. I am concerned about the way in which the Retirement Income Review under this government may well seek to undermine this forward investment that is not just good economic policy, it's also good social policy, because it delivers people the income they need to look after themselves in retirement. There are so many things that I could talk about in this speech, but there are a few that I want to finish on. Only this week Access Economics released their Investment Monitor, showing the challenges in the Australian economy are principally homegrown—something we in Labor have actually been saying for a long time. We've called for more to be done to address weak economic growth, stagnant wages and unemployment. This isn't political; this is just the hard facts. Access Economics have joined a long line of credible organisations that all have the same facts: the economy is floundering; wages are stagnant; too many people aren't working, they aren't working enough or as much as they'd like to; interest rates keep dropping; and the Reserve Bank have said that there's only so much that they can do. It's a consequence of this government's lack of economic plan. It's a consequence, really, of their political strategy, and it's not working. There is one more thing that I want to draw to the attention of the House. The government's misunderstanding of the economy matches its misunderstanding of the role of industrial relations. This government seems to see industrial relations as a way in which it can suppress workers and give an advantage to employers, to make sure they can increase their profits while the wages of employees are left lower. But if we want to see a better country, industrial relations has to be a way of protecting the health and safety of workers. It has to be a way to ensure their economic prosperity and their agency in our community. It has to be about involving workers in the means of production to ensure that our community— (Time expired) 17:47 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today in response to the Governor-General's speech where he outlined the government's program for this term of parliament. I will come back to that excellent speech, but, firstly, although it is five months since the election, I do need to thank the people, the electors, of O'Connor who have honoured me with a third term of representing them here in Canberra. O'Connor is a remarkable electorate and one that I'm proud to represent. It's 866,000 square kilometres, encompassing a wonderful mining province across the Goldfields, centred on Kalgoorlie; an extraordinary agriculture sector running from Esperance to Manjimup; and covering wheat, sheep and some very high-value horticultural products. Also, on the south-west edge of the electorate, we have the town of Collie, which is the main power generation centre in Western Australia. The very hardworking people of Collie honoured me with a very large swing in the electorate. So thank you very much to the people of O'Connor. I'm here to work on your behalf for the next three years, and this government will continue to deliver the services and the infrastructure that we need and deserve in our wonderful electorate. I want to thank the many helpers who worked on my campaign and on the polling booths, not only on election day but also on the pre-polls, which were open for up to three weeks prior to election day. That really tested the resolve of our volunteers, but I thank, from the bottom of my heart, those people who helped out through that period. They are the true believers. They are the people who were prepared to give of their time and effort at a time when everybody, every pundit, had written our party off. They still made that extraordinary effort for their values and their beliefs and to support me, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart. But, of course, no-one deserves my thanks more than my beautiful wife, Tanya, and our four children, Emma, Annalise, Phillipa and Archie. They spend many, many nights when I'm away from home and I'm not there to help them and support them through life's daily challenges. This is the sixth year that I've been doing that, and they've got another three years ahead of them at least. I absolutely thank them for their sacrifice to support me to do this very privileged job. I also want to thank Steve Martin, who's my divisional president. Steve has done more than anybody else outside of my family to help me become the member for O'Connor and to support me through the three elections that we've had since I've been the member. Also in my division there is the executive who form the bulk of my campaign committee and, of course, my wonderful staff. I'm very fortunate to have seven permanent or part-time staff, and they do a wonderful job. Not only during the election campaign but during the interim period, we're servicing constituents and making sure that the people of O'Connor are well looked after by the Commonwealth government. The date of 18 May was a defining moment for this country. It was when the quiet Australians roared. I think there are some implications of what came out of the result on 18 May. Firstly, Twitter will no longer be seen as the go-to platform by the media. Also, I read in the media just the other day that the Labor Party have woken up to the fact that Twitter does not represent the Australian people. The people on Twitter tend to be people who've already got a very strong position, and they reinforce that position on a daily basis with their contributions. But, largely, it does not represent the quiet Australians. The fortnightly Newspoll has probably brought down four prime ministers in the last 10 or 12 years. The media trawl through those results, analyse them to death and fill the fortnight with them until the next one comes around, when they can reanalyse the entrails of those particular results. I think most Australians now understand that all that a poll does is represent a snapshot in time of the way people feel. While someone who's responding to an opinion poll—for example, mid-term between elections—can perhaps convey their discontent with an existing government, and there are no consequences to telling a phone pollster that you're going to vote one way or another, as people get closer to election day, they very much decide that there are consequences and they vote accordingly. The all-powerful GetUp! was threatening members on only the coalition side. Mr Paul Oosting said the other day that they were only targeting right-wing coalition members. I'm not sure that the new member for Wentworth would describe himself as particularly right-wing. They certainly went after him, as well as many other coalition colleagues, and I would go so far as to say their efforts were completely counterproductive. If I were a member sitting on the other side and GetUp! said that they were going to come and campaign in my electorate in the next election, I'd be saying, 'Please don't bother, fellows, because you actually do more harm than good.' I think that we won't see much of GetUp! in the future. They have actually got no credibility left, with their bullying and misogyny, particularly of my dear friend and colleague Nicolle Flint, the member for Boothby. Anybody who associates themselves with GetUp! is effectively endorsing that type of behaviour. I think there are not many decent Australians left who would like to be associated with that behaviour. I've heard other members on our side of parliament delivering their speeches on the address-in-reply and saying that we dodged a bullet—that old-fashioned cliche. Well, I reckon in O'Connor we dodged an intercontinental ballistic missile armed with a nuclear warhead, because some of the policies that were being put forward by the other side had massive implications. I'll go through the ones that we're all aware of that were Australia wide. There was the retirees tax, the tax on people's franking credits, the double-taxing of people who are shareholders in companies, who pay the 30c in the dollar tax as a shareholder of a company and then receive their dividend plus the distribution of the imputation credit. I had one particular constituent who came to me who was completely self-funded, living quite modestly. His only income was from his share dividends and franking credits. His income was $38,000, so not the top end of town, not living in a harbourside mansion, just living very modestly, very proud that he'd never had to draw on the taxpayer in his retirement. However, the loss of his franking credits would have reduced his income to $28,000. It is pretty tough to live on that sort of money. That's probably less than a pensioner couple receive through the pension. That was the sort of impact it was going to have on many, many self-funded retirees across my electorate. Of course, Albany, Denmark and the south coast are a retirement Mecca for self-funded retirees, and they were going to be very heavily impacted. The Labor Party's negative gearing policy would have had two impacts in my electorate. The investors are overwhelmingly people on middle incomes, people earning up to $85,000 a year. Let's face it, for those middle-income earners—the policeman and the nurse—the only way they really have of generating some additional wealth for their retirement is to invest in an investment property. When they've got their current mortgage under control, they might decide that, if they invest in a property, it's an enforced saving scheme. They'd like to think that, in the next 20 or so years of their working lives, they'll pay that mortgage off, and the property will be worth considerably more than they paid for it. It really is, for many middle-income families, the only mechanism they have to build some wealth over and above their compulsory superannuation. Not only that; in many of the small regional towns, the only investors in housing stock are the negatively geared investors. So the opposition's policy would have had a devastating impact on the rental stock in many of the small regional towns that I represent. Something that went under the radar somewhat was the $3,000 cap on accountancy fees. I have nearly 20,000 small businesses across my electorate. I think I'm in the top three in the nation for small businesses. Any small business turning over a reasonable amount of money would be spending a considerable amount more than $3,000 for accountancy fees. I heard the then opposition Treasury spokesman, Chris Bowen, describe accountants' fees as a rort—'We're going to fix this rort'—which certainly exercised a few of the accountants across my electorate, who work very hard and do a great job for their clients in, legally, minimising the amount of tax that those clients pay. That is within the law. That's what accountants do. That's their job. They were quite taken aback to be described as 'rorters'. So that was another bullet that we dodged. But, in an electorate like O'Connor, the 45 per cent emissions reduction target would have been absolutely devastating. We have a mining industry, we have a large agricultural sector and, of course, we have a heavy transport sector. All of our goods and services and supplies are delivered via heavy transport, and, of course, the cost of that transport would have gone through the roof. Electricity generation represents about 27 per cent of our emissions, the next highest is agriculture on 19 per cent, transport is on 17 per cent and mining is on 13 per cent. So where do you think a government that had a 45 per cent emissions target were going to go looking for emissions reductions? The answer is: all of those key industries across my electorate, and it would have been devastating. The other one was 50 per cent electric cars by 2030—just over 10 years away. How would a government force 50 per cent of the population to buy an electric car? I was looking for a Hyundai Kona, which is a little SUV four-cylinder vehicle. I just happened to be flicking through, and the petrol version is around $25,000. Then I saw one worth $70,000! Why was that one worth $70,000? Because it's an electric vehicle. So how would a government force people to buy a $70,000 vehicle and not a $25,000 vehicle? Well, it's quite easy: you just keep cranking up fuel taxes. You just keep putting up fuel taxes until it reaches the point where it's more economical to buy an electric car for $70,000 than a petrol car for $25,000. The impact on the people who live in my electorate—who travel distances of 600 kilometres from Perth to Kalgoorlie, 730 kilometres from Perth to Esperance or 430 kilometres from Perth to Albany—would have been absolutely devastating. But, effectively, if they wanted to get to 50 per cent electric cars by 2030, that's what would happen. It's not only that. The other day I saw a story about an electric vehicle, a Nissan LEAF, one of the smaller electric vehicles. When it was eight years old the batteries needed replacing, and the replacement batteries would have cost $23,000. But the valuation on the vehicle was only $12,000. So you can see the problem that that might have for, for example, students leaving school and looking to buy their first car. It's a few thousand dollars for a petrol vehicle at the moment, but, no, no, in the brave new world it would be at least $20-odd thousand for an electric vehicle with a new battery—hopefully, if they could afford it. So these are some of the ramifications that people in my electorate would have faced, had the election gone the other way. Of course, that main platform that we took to the election was about tax cuts. We're about cutting taxes for everyday Australians, and we've delivered on that promise: the $1,080 rebate—$2,160 for a couple—for people earning between $45,000 and $87,000 has been delivered and is in people's bank accounts, if they've submitted their tax return. We continue to reduce company tax for companies turning over up to $100 million, and that will reduce to 25 per cent. In the longer term, by 2024-2025 we'll be reducing the tax rate to 30 cents in the dollar for people earning between $45,000 and $200,000. So we've delivered on those already, and there's plenty more to do. I just want to touch on a couple of local issues and local projects that were funded during the election campaign. Firstly, there's the Albany Ring Road project. This has been exercising the community in the Great Southern for a long time. The first stage of the ring road project was completed in 2007, and we have now put $140 million on the table to complete sections 2 and 3. The state government has contributed $35 million, and that project will be underway as soon as the planning and engineering designs are completed. The money is there and ready to go. We also committed $40 million for the Southern Forest Irrigation Scheme to top up the $27 million that the WA government has contributed and the $11 million that local growers contributed. So that's an $87 million project that will secure water in the Southern Forests region for the foreseeable future. There is $16 million for the Laverton Hospital. Laverton is a little town of 200 to 300 people, mostly Indigenous people, 390 kilometres north-east of Kalgoorlie. The Western Australian coalition government, prior to the 2017 election, had committed to rebuild the Laverton Hospital. When the Western Australian Labor government were elected in March 2017 they withdrew that funding. Quite disgracefully, the Minister for Regional Development, Alannah MacTiernan, said that the mining company should pay for that hospital rebuild. Well, I'm very pleased to say that the Commonwealth government has committed the $16 million to rebuild the Laverton Hospital with no conditions attached. We also contributed $70 million to the Roads of Strategic Importance program, which will be implemented across 40 shires in my electorate and also in the electorates of the members for Durack and Pearce. We also funded some small projects: the Kojonup medical centre—the George Church Medical Centre—to top up the $500,000 that was left to the community by the much loved George Church. That was $750,000 to build them a medical centre. There was also $500,000 for the Katanning medical centre, which will renovate the old shire buildings and provide state-of-the-art rooms for a medical practice to operate from. Goldfields Rehabilitation Services received $1.5 million towards operational costs for their program. Unfortunately, that's a service in the goldfields which is oversubscribed. We need to support Goldfields rehab to continue the good work they're doing. There was $278,000 for the Kambalda pool, which opened up some other funds from the state government and several of the local mining companies. And of course the mobile phone program has continued. There is much more work to be done across my electorate of O'Connor. There are many worthy projects that still need to be delivered and, of course, making sure that the people of my electorate receive the infrastructure and the education and health services that they need. And we also need to address the labour shortages that occur across a large part of my electorate. That shortage of labour is a major economic constraint for local companies and is among my priorities. I say to my constituents that, after working very hard for them, I recommit over the next three years to deliver that infrastructure and those services that they absolutely deserve and need. 18:07 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today in the address-in-reply to thank the community that returned me to this parliament. I want to thank my family—long-suffering, obviously—and I want to thank my friends, but, most importantly, I want to thank the people who worked on my campaign. I want to thank Henry Barlow, Vicki Fitzgerald and Jasminda Sidu, who managed me and the campaign across the many weeks. And I want to thank the Labor members and volunteers who worked so hard in the campaign. Stalwarts in particular were Susan and Stephen Foster, whose work on pre-polls is incredible over many, many years—in fact, many decades. I want to thank the large numbers—the largest number of volunteers that I've had since becoming the member for Lalor—who helped on pre-poll, who handed out on election day and who did the letterboxing, the doorknocking and the street stalls, and they stood with me on train stations. My particular thanks go to Michael and to Matthew Potts and Henry Barlow for the yard signs that went up over weeks. To all of those people who volunteered to have yard signs, I say thank you once again. I want to commit here that I will continue to fight for our community; for those who voted for me and for those who didn't. I will fight in this place and beyond. I want to make a few comments about the community that I represent. Obviously, we're in the outer south-western suburbs of Melbourne—sometimes referred to these days as the 'Avalon corridor'. Werribee, of course, is quite famous around the country as the point halfway between Geelong and Melbourne, and the City of Wyndham, of which Lalor is made up, is centred around the small country town that was Werribee when I was growing up. I represent the suburbs of Hoppers Crossing, Werribee, Werribee South, Tarneit, Truganina, Little River, Wyndham Vale, Manor Lakes and parts of Point Cook after this most recent redistribution. This is a growth area, an area with a population now of 270,000 people in 2019 and with a forecast to grow to 489,000 people by 2041. It is the third fastest growing local government area in Australia. That growth has been considerable, dramatic and sustained over a decade. Currently, and these numbers keep going up, there are 100 babies born to a Wyndham mother each week. I'll let the House consider that for a moment, that's 100 babies born a week to mums in the community that I stand here to represent. We also had the highest number of dwelling approvals in Victoria between July 2018 and April 2019. And it is the only growth area where the median land price has not declined between May 2018 and April 2019, so the growth will continue. Our gross regional product accounts for 2.29 per cent of Victoria's GRP. We have one of the largest jobs to workers deficits in Victoria, which of course means that many in our community are on the move, up early and in their cars, or on the bus, or off to the railway station, or on to the M1 winding their way through the electorate, through the city of Wyndham, to reach, I must say, our limited industrial precincts where those who are fortunate enough to have a local job may be headed. There are 17,000 businesses registered in Lalor as of 2018 and that was up 32 per cent from 2016. The majority of those are single operator businesses, people working heavily with their own ABN and many of them spending their days toiling away as lone tradesmen. There are really interesting things about the people that I represent. Fifty-eight per cent of the residents of the seat of Lalor are 35 years or younger. We are an incredibly young electorate. Almost half of all Wyndham's residents were born overseas and they represent 162 countries. On top of that, the Wyndham Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population is the largest in all of greater Melbourne. If you call 100 random Wyndham residents 53 of them will speak a language other than English when they answer the phone. Together with the cities of Casey and Hume, Wyndham is home to the largest family households in all of greater Melbourne, and more than half of Wyndham households are families with children. So we are young, mostly we are young families. The majority of these households have children under 15 years of age. So it's an area with dramatic growth, it's an area with young families and it's an area where we turn housing developments into communities. People work hard at this. They get up and go to work early in the morning. They come home late at night. They pick up the kids from early education and child care or from after-school care. They get home and then they start the volunteering. Then they get in the car again and they take the kids to training. On the weekends they have got their kids at football, at netball, at soccer, at a myriad of sports, or they've got kids at dancing, or involved in the arts, or off to our fantastic libraries that Wyndham City Council has created. It is a vibrant part of our community. But it is also a community that is often under stress. What we have in common in the seat of Lalor and in the community that is Wyndham is a desire to live well, to have secure work or to establish a business that provides security for our families. We have high hopes for our children that they will have security in their lives, that they can find a path. That means that education is at a premium in our community. The people value education above most things. They also, of course, value health services, because with young families and the anxiety that comes with a sick child they really value access to a doctor, access to the emergency department at our local hospital and access to our local hospital if needed. I want to commend our local hospital and state Labor government because the mercy public hospital in Wyndham opened its paediatrics unit just this past week and people are very excited about that. But mostly people in Wyndham want to pass on a better life to their kids and that's why cost of living issues are so important to the people in my community and it's why I need to take a moment to go through a couple of other things. It became apparent this week that more than 8,000 homes in my community had had their electricity cut off in the last three years. I can't imagine the stress of that. Well, I can imagine the stress, having been a single mother raising three sons and working part-time for about six years on my journey with my family. I imagine the fear of it, but I cannot imagine the reality of it and the absolute, sheer stress of that. On top of that, we have very high mortgage stress rates in Wyndham, where most families are paying more than 30 per cent of their income on their mortgage, and we have the highest rental eviction rates in the state. Most in our community live week to week, month to month. We pay our mortgages and our rent, and we save for our annual holiday, if we're fortunate. We pay the school fees, we pay the child care and we pay the kinder fees, where we need to. We get the kids to sport and cultural activities. There's not a lot of money left over for luxuries for most of the families who live in my community. Looking to the future, we will rely heavily on our superannuation contributions, in terms of a dignified retirement. Like hundreds of thousands of Australians, we have minimal savings. As I said, we do all of that. We live with all of those stresses—the stresses of the commute, the stresses of finding work, the stresses of keeping work, the stresses of trying to get off insecure work and into secure work, the fears that there won't be secure work for our kids. We do all of that and, at the same time, we build a great community. But it is important to note how much the national economy impacts on our local economy and how decisions and actions taken or not taken in this place have a direct impact on the lives of those who live in my community. Cuts to penalty rates in our community don't just impact on the stereotypically young part-time worker. Many in our community work in casual or insecure work. Cuts to their incomes directly impact on our small businesses and our local economy. Cuts to pensions have an impact too. We rely on and, in fact, we pin our hopes on our educational institutions—our early learning centres, our schools, our limited TAFE and our Melbourne universities—for the quality that will see our children pave their way. We rely on Medicare for our health needs, and shocks to hip pockets because of health issues can disrupt family life. Needing an MRI in our community can mean $400 out of the weekly budget or the savings or a trip to the city to access a Medicare fully rebated MRI. Labor's commitment, which we took to the last election, to grant a fully rebated MRI licence to our local public hospital, the Mercy hospital, was valued highly by our community, and this government's failure to match that commitment is something that my community fails to understand. It has left them feeling forgotten by the government. Worse was the news that this government made a commitment for a third fully rebated MRI licence to the city of Geelong, which is just down the road from us. We are larger than they are, in terms of population, yet there is no access in Wyndham, and this government has shown no sign of changing that in the near future. Decisions in this place impact directly on our lives. The 2018 budget created an urban congestion fund of $1 billion. That has been raised to, I think, $4 billion now. There has not been one cent, other than the $17 million that was spent on advertising during the election campaign, from that fund. In my community, that decision matters. It means that we are not getting the Wyndham West Link, which would save people 20 minutes getting from Tarneit to Wyndham Vale to take their kids to our local basketball or netball courts. For most people who live in my community, it would save them 25 minutes getting onto the M1, if they're driving, or getting to a railway station. This is about a $50 million spend for one of those bridges and possibly $50 million for the other. We've got an urban congestion fund there, but we have a government reluctant to use it. And, when it does use it, I'm sure the people in my community think that they'll bypass us and take the money to the south-east, to some other electorate, as they have done with the car parks at stations. There was no commitment from this government to alleviate the issues at the car parks at the stations in my electorate, but there were commitments made to other areas, some of them in inner Melbourne, where there are three or four different options already on the ground for people's commute, whereas, where we come from, it's the train or it's your car; there isn't a third option. There are no buses to the city. There are no trams that connect to anywhere else. In our community, household budgets are tight. People work hard. Most travel, as I've said, out of the city. Most do that travel because the jobs are not available. Again, the people in my community feel that this government doesn't care about them, because there is no commitment to—no interest at all in—job creation in the city of Wyndham. My community needs a government that understands how the national economy impacts on their lives, how a soaring cost of living, if not met with matching wage or income increases, leaves people feeling vulnerable, leaves people feeling forgotten by this government. While the Prime Minister talks and talks and ignores the negative trajectory of the national economic indicators, people in my electorate sweat. Anxiety builds about not just their future but the future of their children. On their behalf, in this place, I call on this government to act, to take the advice from the Reserve Bank governor and from business and to use the levers at its disposal to stimulate the economy, through infrastructure spends and by putting back people's penalty rates. This would make an enormous difference in my community. I urge this government to watch closely the figures of people who are working in labour hire, in casual situations. This can be going on for six, seven, eight, nine and 10 years. Think about young people sitting at home waiting for the text message at 11 o'clock tonight to say whether they've got work tomorrow. Think about how that's impacting on a 26-year-old's life plan. There is no security. Many of them are still living at home in my community because they don't know if they've got work tomorrow. If they've left home, they return. They may have left home, found themselves in debt—in debt to payday lenders, in debt in all sorts of ways—and wind up back with mum and dad. This government needs to act because, while mortgage holders watch the official interest rates plummet three times in three months, to a record 0.75 per cent, and wait for the banks to pass on the savings, they know that, while this might mean some savings for them, without government action the trend could set in and mean a slowdown that sees job losses and the flow-on to the 17,000 small businesses in our community, who would also then feel the pinch. It's not difficult to imagine. If you're a landscaper, no-one's redoing their garden if jobs are on the line. No-one's redoing their garden if they don't feel secure. No-one's building the extension if they don't feel secure. No-one's upgrading their house and getting that second investment if they don't feel secure in their job. There is absolutely no way for this government to avoid having themselves held responsible for this. We know that the IMF's World economic outlook has slashed Australia's economic growth forecast to only 1.7 per cent in 2019, down from 2.1 per cent last year. Australia's growth this year is now expected to be slower than that of the US, Spain and Greece. Economic growth is at the lowest levels since the GFC. Household living standards and productivity have declined under this government. Wages are stagnant—people in my electorate absolutely understand that. This government is presiding over the worst wages growth on record. Almost two million Australians are looking for work or for more work. Many in my community are looking for work and for more work. Household debt has surged to record levels. Of course, that's reflected also in the mortgage stress that I'm seeing in my community. I want to pay tribute to the hard work done by our local community legal centre, WEstjustice, for the work that they have done across the last few years, having saved 400 people from losing their home and being turfed out onto the street. Business investment in this country is down 20 per cent since the Liberals came to office and is now at its lowest level since the 1990s recession. This is a list of agony for a community like mine. Consumer confidence, not surprisingly, is down over the past year, and consumption growth is weak. Australia became one of the two fastest-growing economic in the OECD under Labor and the eight-fastest when government changed hands in 2013, but under the Liberals we have dropped to 20th. All of this makes people in my community feel nervous. What it does for me is absolutely motivate me to get on my feet in this place as often as I can to convince the government that they need to act. They need to act to ensure that in an area like ours, a growth area, to which people come from all over the world because of affordable housing to set up their families and live, we get a quality education for the children and we have a quality health system to ensure that people dig in and stay in our communities. That is absolutely imperative. On another note, the government need to pay attention to the fact that it is not an accident that there are 162 languages spoken in my electorate. They are our migration policies. We need to support those people. They need to be not waiting four and five years to become citizens under this government. They need to be able to get their citizenship and buy into our country—to have a vested interest in their communities—not feel completely insecure about being able to stay where they have transplanted their lives, had their children and set up their homes. Those who are fifth-generation Australians need to feel secure too. They need to feel economically secure. They need to know that their kids are going to be able to get a job. They need to know that they're going to have a job next week. Many in my community just want to know that there are good jobs coming and that if they are skilled enough and make a good enough application they will be able to access full-time permanent work. In conclusion, on behalf of the people in my electorate—those who voted for me and those who didn't—I call on the government to act, to govern for all Australians, to include those in the outer suburbs in their thinking and to pay as much attention to the growing outer suburbs where their policies see dramatic growth but people struggling to forge secure lives. I want them to pay as much attention to the Avalon corridor in the south-west of Melbourne as they pay to the regions and to the cities. I ask for the government to think every day about the people who live in my electorate, about their lives and about the impact that the actions and inactions of the government have on their everyday lives. Debate adjourned. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 104 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Cambodia 104 18:27 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce There is now a karaoke song in China, popular with lower middle-class workers, exhorting people to go to Sihanoukville, Cambodia, where dreams are made and you can do whatever you want. It's like the fantasies of the wild, wild West of old—casinos, booze, guns, riches, women, you name it. But the promised dreams are not the reality. Sihanoukville is the worst place I have ever been. The roads are clogged and destroyed, the air and water is polluted, gangsters rule and the people are miserable. Locals have had their land stolen by the government to give to rich foreigners and then have been unable to find jobs when the foreign businesses arrive. What is happening in Sihanoukville is now spreading across Cambodia. Hun Sen, who has ruled Cambodia for 30 years, is so desperate to stay in power that he is selling out his country, giving away the Cambodian people's sovereignty to foreign countries and pocketing the cash. Twenty to 30 per cent of Cambodia's coastline has been given to Chinese companies in the form of land concessions, including port facilities in Sihanoukville, which everyone knows are likely to have a military purpose. On 23 October 1991, 28 years ago, the Paris peace accords were signed by the four combatant factions in the conflict and 19 other countries. Through this historic agreement, Australia and the world made a promise to the Cambodian people to stand up for human rights, peace and democracy, but, 28 years on, the world has failed to keep its promise. Instead, Hun Sen's regime has attacked human rights, killed democracy, given away the Cambodian people's sovereignty, accumulated secret wealth overseas for his family and undermined prosperity in our region. I travelled at my expense to Cambodia in August this year with my friend Victorian MP Meng Heang Tak to see the situation firsthand. We met with human rights organisations, independent trade unions, victims of the regime and community leaders. I mustn't say who we met with, to protect their safety lest they be harassed or jailed by the regime, but what I saw truly shocked me, both as a friend of the Cambodian people and as an Australian concerned for a peaceful and stable region. The appalling deterioration in the human rights situation in Cambodia is well documented by Human Rights Watch and by the UN special rapporteur on human rights. But I saw it firsthand. Draconian new laws undermine trade unions and NGOs, restricting freedom of assembly and the ability of ordinary people to get together in any form. There are poor families whose land was stolen by Hun Sen's government. Shamefully, Australia's ANZ Bank financed a syndicate that stole land, and still has not paid compensation. Government critics and democracy activists, such as the inspiring Dr Kem Ley, are murdered. As someone said to me, the government killed the chicken to scare the monkeys. Street protesters are effectively banned and ordinary citizens are harassed by the police just for speaking up on social media. A tuktuk driver in Sihanoukville, when I was there, was called in by the police simply for talking to a journalist and saying things that were critical of the impact of China's Belt and Road Initiative and investments on ordinary Cambodians. Astoundingly, the police made him apologise for bringing the BRI into disrepute. I've always tried to be open-minded on the BRI, but having seen the reality in Sihanoukville I'm forced to rethink my position. Human rights organisations are scared. The workers there are so brave but pleaded with us to keep speaking out publicly, internationally, about what's happening. The state of democracy in Cambodia was even worse than I thought. The opposition party was dissolved before the last election. Hun Sen won 125 seats out of 125 seats. The opposition leader, Kem Sokha, is still in detention. Political activists are unjustly detained every day. Sam Rainsy's planned return on 9 November is met with threats. It's not so much a one-party state now as a one-family sate, because Hun Sen is trying to become the Robert Mugabe of South-East Asia. But the big story, the big thing that has shifted in the last 10 to 20 years, is the impact of Chinese influence. I don't mean this as anti-China rhetoric. I've been the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of China and I believe passionately that Australia needs to invest in a strong and productive relationship with the PRC. But I must be honest and say that I don't see what Hun Sen has let China do in Cambodia as positive. I commend the work of Charlie Edel, who has written on the strategic implications of Chinese investment. It may be couched as BRI, but it seems that Hun Sen is allowing the development of naval and air facilities to facilitate Chinese military planning. The same salami-slicing tactics that the world saw in the South China Sea are happening here. What is happening in Sihanoukville is spreading elsewhere in Cambodia. Indeed, as one person said, 'Don't be fooled: Sihanoukville is the big shiny mess over there to distract people from the broader plan on the fringes.' We heard disturbing accounts, which have not been reported in Australia, of over 170,000 hectares of land in strategic locations given to Chinese interests up and down the Thai and Vietnamese borders. Many people we spoke to talked of 'Chinese only areas' in these concessions off limits for ordinary Cambodians, of men with 'short military style haircuts' though not in uniform, in places like Bavet and Preah Vihea. Should the suggestion of quasi-military facilities in border areas be true, then the strategic implications for Thailand and Vietnam are profound, and ASEAN countries would rightly be concerned. It is not in the interests of a peaceful, stable region to see Cambodia drift away from their historically non-aligned position into authoritarianism. Even factions in Hun Sen's government are upset by these shifts and the imbalance. We also heard of young CPP leaders been flown to China for training by the Chinese Communist Party; of the lackey employer-run unions being mentored in the Chinese state union system; and of surveillance technology from China being exported—cameras on traffic lights and monitoring of people on the internet. And people talk despairingly of the takeover of independent media outlets, shut down or taken over by government critics. But the question for Australia and countries that promised in 1991 to support peace and democracy is: what, if anything, can be done now? Well, first we have to be honest with ourselves and admit that the current approach is not working. Australia's current approach is to just keep talking, but this is insufficient. You build diplomatic capital to achieve outcomes, yet Australia can't point to anything much, aside from a disgraceful refugee deal. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and DFAT need to get real. In colloquial terms, Hun Sen is taking the piss. It's time to press reset and seek a coordinated approach by like-minded nations. And the 1991 Paris Peace Accords are the place to start. The accords are of continuing legal and moral relevance. The UN special rapporteur on human rights in 2011 stated that the agreements will remain relevant until their vision is a reality for all Cambodians. Of course Hun Sen is desperately trying to erase the accords from history, describing them as a ghost. In fact, tomorrow is the last public holiday to commemorate their signing; Hun Sen's abolishing it next year. And in a moment of peak irony he calls the accords 'foreign interference' while he sells Cambodia's coastline and sovereignty to China. But the accords contain a formal mechanism in article 29 to bring together countries in the event of serious violations of human rights—and it is past time that this clause was triggered. There's no doubt that the threshold test of serious violations has been met. Labor's great foreign minister Gareth Evans led us in 1991, and Australia could do so again by writing to the UN Secretary-General and to signatories to trigger article 29. Formal consultations would see signatories coming together to discuss the status of compliance and to devise pathways to urgently re-engage with their commitments. This is a legitimate first step to increase international pressure on Cambodia's government, and would force countries to declare their hand and be accountable. Countries who seek to honour their commitments can then devise a coordinated approach, and I'll just sketch out a few of the elements which I think such an approach could include. First, tell the truth. Shine light on the reality now in international fora and to the Cambodian people. Australia, and others, have to get back into the information game using Radio Australia; invest in Radio Free Asia, shortwave radio, social media. Second, more public diplomacy. Australia has a lot of soft power in Cambodia, as do the USA and other partners. Third, invest in more people-to-people diplomacy. It's relatively cheap. Fourth, carrots: invest more in diplomatic and aid efforts. Cambodia will never be the centre of focus for Australia or the US or Japan, but it should be a central concern for Thailand, Vietnam and those immediately around it, in India and so on. Fifth—sticks. Australia should coordinate actions, including considering targeted sanctions against key members of the CPP regime involved directly in human rights abuses and suppression of democracy—as the USA has already done. Hun Sen's cronies do not want their assets and wealthy lifestyles in Australia and other Western countries threatened. And, sixth, we need to push back harder on foreign interference in Australia by the Cambodian People's Party to protect Australian Cambodian people from the CPP's propaganda and threats. Action is now urgently needed and principled nations, I hope like Australia, must take a stronger stand against this authoritarian takeover. The Morrison government talks a big game, but it's not good enough to just keep saying 'all options are on the table' and yet do nothing. Our ambassador is good, but her instructions appear weak. The Prime Minister has to move past the disgraceful refugee deal with Cambodia and drinking champagne with the dictator. If he fails to act, he has to explain why. People will be entitled to ask, 'What were you doing, Prime Minister, when democracy was dying in Cambodia? Why did you fail to act?' Queensland Government 106 18:37 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Today in the Queensland parliament history was made, and I have to say not in a good way, with the Queensland Labor Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, being forced to apologise for contempt of parliament. This is the first time a Queensland Premier has ever had to apologise to the parliament for contempt. I say to the Queensland Premier: 'Don't stop there. There is a long list of things that you should apologise for when it comes to the people of Queensland, and that starts with refusing to sign the Hinkler Regional Deal.' The Hinkler Regional Deal is a deal which drives jobs into our local economy, which creates long-term change in economic growth, which delivers vital infrastructure for our region, my electorate and that Central Queensland area. The things we are waiting for in the Hinkler Regional Deal include the federal government putting $32 million on the table for what's known as the Quay Street bypass. This will allow the removal of heavy vehicles and commuter traffic from the area of Quay Street, which is in the middle of Bundaberg. We announced that on 1 April 2019. We have put up $10 million for a safety upgrade for the Buxton Road intersection on the Bruce Highway—a critical piece of infrastructure. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, we cannot deliver roads infrastructure unless the state comes on board. We have existing infrastructure agreements for the state contribution at the moment; they continue to refuse to participate for that particular road. We have put $7.7 million on the table to extend Urraween Road through to Boundary Road in Hervey Bay, a project that has waited 20 years to come to fruition, and the state refuses to participate. In fact, we've actually funded some projects for state government owned corporations in full. We have delivered $10 million for a multi-use conveyor at the Port of Bundaberg, once again announced on 1 April 2019. Fortunately, the true premier of Queensland, 'Premier' Trad, has accepted that we'll be able to deliver that money. They're happy to administer a 100-per-cent funded program by the federal government and $750,000 for a pre-feasibility study for the Port of Bundaberg outer harbour. Mr Bailey, on 14 June, said they discovered some funds in their budget—I'm fairly confident they actually weren't aware they were committed to the projects. But that does include the Torbanlea Pialba Road flood mitigation project, the Torbanlea Pialba Road; the Bargara Road-Princess Street upgrade; and what's known as the Isis Highway overtaking lanes between Bundaberg and Childers. But, federally, we've committed $24 million for Torbanlea Pialba Road, $8 million for Bargara Road-Princess Street upgrade, $4 million for overtaking lanes, and we have just the 20 per cent contribution from the state. No. 2 on the list is their dishonesty in regards to Paradise Dam. The Queensland Labor government are being absolutely shifty again. Their first announcement was political spin at its absolute worst: 'Great news for drought stricken farmers: free water'. The fine print was pretty fine. What it said was they were releasing 110,000 megalitres from our state's newest dam storage, and most of that, in my view, will run out to sea, because you simply cannot pick it up and put it on a farm storage that doesn't exist, or use it on a crop when it's not the right part of the cycle. Then, it was a safety issue of unspecified nature. If there is a safety issue with this dam, my community deserves to know. So I say, again, to Premier Palaszczuk: walk up to a camera, walk up to a microphone and tell my community what the problem is. They have stated, would you believe, that they'll spend $100 million to take five metres off the dam wall and reduce its storage capacity by 85,000 megalitres permanently. That is an absolute kick in the guts for the people I represent, and it is a loss of wealth. At No. 3: the true Premier, 'Premier' Trad, purchased a property at Woolloongabba, which is in close proximity to the Cross River Rail project that Ms Trad was overseeing. She was referred to the CCC in July by the opposition for failing to disclose the investment on the state parliament's Register of Members' Interests within the time limit. She then referred herself to the CCC, personally called the CCC chairman to discuss the matter, so the chairman had to recuse himself from the inquiry. Ms Trad has since sold that home, allegedly for the same price that it was purchased, $695,500. At No. 4: just last week, state Labor MP Peter Russo, the member for Toohey, denied he had a conflict of interest in his law firm receiving cases from the publicly funded Legal Aid service while he sits as the head of the parliament's legal affairs committee. Russo Lawyers has been on the list of approved firms for Legal Aid cases for the past four years. Kicking off the list at No. 5, the premier's former Chief of Staff, David Barbagallo, a director of Fortress Capstone Pty Ltd and one of its major shareholders, a company which received a $267,500 government grant from Advance Queensland Business Development Fund to support the growth of CruiseTraka, a social media app for cruise ship passengers. Mr Barbagallo, who jointly owns 29½ per cent of Fortress Capstone with his wife, became Premier Palaszczuk's Chief of Staff in May 2017. The Labor government in Queensland claims that the Advance Queensland grants are made to support cutting edge research or innovative ideas, products and services which lead to the creation of high-value, knowledge based and skilled jobs now and into the future. Unlike many other Advance Queensland grant recipients, CruiseTraka's funding was not announced to the media. The matter has been referred to the CCC. Mr Barbagello resigned in September 2019. At No. 6, and I know you'll enjoy this one, Mr Deputy Speaker, is about the reef laws that are killing our ag industry. The Queensland Labor government has now decided that the reef laws will apply to my region, the Bundaberg region down towards Maryborough, in an area which is many, many kilometres from the Great Barrier Reef. In fact, there is real doubt about whether any of the water run-off actually gets to the reef from that region, and yet they are going to enforce these laws across our agricultural producers. These are mandatory standards. They drive up bureaucracy for our hardworking farmers and agricultural workers, they drive up costs, they make it harder for them to be competitive and have no environmental benefit to the Barrier Reef whatsoever. At No. 7—and I know you have heard of this one, Mr Deputy Speaker—is that they are holding our tourism industry to ransom. They are threatening the personal safety of the people who swim on Queensland beaches by removing drum lines in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Drum lines have been part of the landscape in Queensland since the 1950s. They are truly effective. When you live in an area like that, where the coast is so attractive, everybody wants to go for a swim. Summer or winter, it doesn't really matter. This affects personal safety. I've got to say, and I've said it before, that they're more concerned about a fish than they are about the individuals who are swimming at our beaches. They are more concerned about a fish than they are about the person who might be attacked by a shark and might lose their life or the life of a loved one. I find that absolutely appalling. At No. 8 is the land-clearing laws, which are surely the big reason for the devastating fires, or are certainly a contributing factor. We saw a report in the Australianthat the fires at Deepwater in July 2017 were absolutely tragic. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you know what causes a fire. It comes down to fuel and fuel loading. It comes down to oxygen. It comes down to ignition. If you fail to manage the fuel load in national parks and other regions and you fail to give permission for landholders to back-burn to control the fuel load on their properties, then, when this builds up over a period of 10, 20, 30 and sometimes 40 years, the results are absolutely devastating. Instead of having a slow, cool back-burn, where wildlife can escape, trees can regrow and grass can regrow, you end up with a fire of catastrophic proportions that wipes out everything. That is exactly what happened up in the Deepwater region. Quite simply, the Queensland Labor government would not give permission to landholders to back-burn on their properties and protect them from these types of events. At No. 9 with a rocket is the Adani project being held to ransom because of the Deputy Premier wanting people to exit the resources industry. Deputy Premier Trad literally went to a microphone and told the entire mining sector they needed to transition out of their jobs into something else. It is an industry of over $200 billion with over 200,000 jobs. But you can quite simply transition to something else. That is what the Queensland Labor government is saying. Last but not least, at No. 10 is Premier Palaszczuk's complete inability to hold Extinction Rebellion to account and keep them out of our state capital. This will get out of hand. Individuals will take this into their own hands because they are tired of being obstructed over and over again by these individuals. I say to the Premier: take real action to ensure that people like Extinction Rebellion do not hold our state to ransom because they don't like the umpire's decision. The umpire has made up their mind; they've done it fairly. They need to accept that decision. They have a right to protest, but not to hold up individuals who just want to go to work. Aged Care 107 18:47 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise tonight to grieve for some particular cohorts in my electorate of Greenway who are doing it tough. An article in the Herald Sun earlier this year noted that the sixth edition of The Australian Oxford Dictionary, which was released in 2017, included over 2,000 new words to reflect the evolution of the English language in our country. The article said: Alongside millennial newcomers … was the "sandwich generation", a term used to describe the group of people caught between the responsibilities of caring for ageing parents and adult children. I think that it would be more accurate there to say that it is not only adult children but young children as well. As I go about my community, I am struck by the number of middle-aged Australians around my age. I knock on their doors and speak to them or they approach me at mobile offices. They're not asking for much; in fact, in many cases, they're not asking for anything other than to be heard. These are people who are raising their own children but, through circumstances, are also caring for elderly parents—in many cases, elderly parents who have, or an elderly parent who has, a degenerative disease such as dementia. They are living in the same home as their children, so there are three generations living in the one home, which is, I think, a great thing. It's a great thing to be around a large family, but it does include many challenges that have been made known to me by this particular cohort. It's a growing issue and it's a story that many more Australians are familiar with, and more familiar with than we might think. Belonging to the sandwich generation can include providing financial support to one's parents or assuming the primary responsibility for their health care. That may include taking time off work for doctors' appointments and covering out-of-pocket expenses and the costs of some medications. For some, it can mean leaving the workforce altogether to become a full-time carer. As my constituents would know, since my electorate has such a large percentage of households where two parents in the home are working, the logistics of life are hard enough as it is. This generational interdependency, which is becoming increasingly prevalent amongst families where an older member is living at home with a degenerative illness, unable to continue living independently, is a real challenge for many families. Just flicking through some of the media courage, I see that, in May this year, there was a suggestion that there are around 1½ million Australians in the sandwich generation. This reporting apparently relied on 2013 data, so it's highly likely that the figure is even higher today. Interestingly, a number of media articles note that the Australians fulfilling this role are mostly women. Whilst these women wouldn't change it for the world, giving voice to their struggle is really an issue. I note an article on 9Honey, where an individual said, about caring for young children and elderly parents: In my case it wasn't financial - certainly emotional and physical - I was 36 when I had my son. He's now 13 and my mother was 36 when she had me which meant by the time I had an infant, my parents were 72. With these challenges, more than anything we need to listen to people who are in this situation. Given their dual responsibilities, we need to understand what the consequences will be in the immediate and long term. Around one in three people from the sandwich generation will retire with substantial debt. That's according to a REST Industry Super report from 2017. With an ageing population and with waiting times for aged-care home care packages increasing under this hopeless government, it's only going to get worse. I'm frequently contacted by local residents who are desperate to continue living independently, but too often, with the time spent waiting, after lodging an application, for its assessment, approval and delivery, they are forced to rely on the support of their children who are in the sandwich generation. When you have the cost of everything except wages going up, it's no wonder the cost of living continues to rate as the top issue for so many Australians. As parents and children ourselves, people my age understand these dual pressures. When tasked with the decision to support either your elderly parents or your children, I don't think many people would bat an eyelid; they'd support both. But it doesn't mean that we need to accept that they'll be financially worse off as a result of making that decision. My colleague the member for Fenner very eloquently summarised today how, after six years of this government, the economy is floundering. Australians are struggling. This government has no plans to turn things around. Economic growth is the slowest since the GFC. Wages are stagnant. There are almost two million Australians looking for work or more work. Living standards and productivity are going backwards. We've got collapsing confidence and weak growth as the inevitable consequences of a government with a political strategy but no economic policy. A situation like that is not going to provide the solutions that the sandwich generation needs. I think it's very important that we recognise the plight of Australia's young people, the plight of people who are in this situation, and address, for example, the issue of unaffordable housing in this country. We need to have a real wages policy, to get wages moving again and to help young people to live independently. Also, we need to address the astronomical waiting times for home care packages, to help older Australians to continue to live independently. We should also seriously address pension deeming rates, to increase the amount of money in the pockets of older Australians. I think it's a shame when we have a situation where our older generation, who have done so much, and middle-aged people like myself, who are still in the workforce raising families and are doing it tough, are not given a voice in this parliament. As I said, when I speak to and listen to these people on a regular basis they are not asking for much. They are not asking for much. More often than not what they are asking for is some recognition. With those comments, I want to end by talking about, again, what is a very serious issue affecting families in my electorate and that's the state of health care. It was reported only last week that the New South Wales Liberal government issued a directive to the head of the department of surgery at Blacktown and Mount Druitt hospitals to cut the total number of elective surgery sessions carried out in 2020 by 400—400! In an email circulated to his staff the head of surgery said: I have no doubt that if such changes are introduced, many patients will experience significant breaches in waiting times. Despite this, a decision has been made to reduce activity. It's well covered in the media that elective surgery waiting times in New South Wales are only getting longer. These surgeries are not luxuries. It's disappointing to say, at the very least, that the New South Wales Liberals think that they are right for cutting as part of their cost saving agenda. Procedures in areas such as general surgery and orthopaedics will be affected, including hip and knee replacements, and procedures affecting the stomach, breasts, liver, gallbladder and appendix. In the same email the head of surgery also said, 'We do not support any reduction in elective surgery services at all. What was explained to us was that if we did not sort out how to do this as a department it would be done for us by hospital administration.' This is a callous and cruel directive. It is absolutely astounding. Here we have compassionate Western Sydney doctors and healthcare professionals who do not support this decision, and have gone public saying so, because of the adverse impacts on patient outcomes, being forced into cutting procedures in the interests of saving money. And if they don't co-operate it will harm their patients. In terms of its population, the Blacktown local government area is one of the largest in all of Australia, and it is still growing. Despite these trends, the Liberals' approach to health care is to cut local services. The mind absolutely boggles. When questioned by the New South Wales opposition, the New South Wales Minister for Health laughed and joked with his colleagues. This is not a laughing matter. Nor do I or my colleagues in this place, or the residents who represent who will be impacted by this decision, think that this is a laughing matter, and the minister should be absolutely ashamed. Even more frustrating is the fact that the Liberals continue to overpromise and underdeliver when it comes to health care. In the lead up to the 2015 election the New South Wales Liberals promised a new hospital in Rouse Hill. We still do not have that delivered. Not only did they not deliver it, they have announced a site and so-called hospital, a hospital with no beds and no emergency ward. Western Sydney deserves better. Duration of Parliamentary Terms 109 18:58 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Tonight I would like to take this opportunity to put forward a case for four-year parliamentary terms at the federal level. The Australian national parliamentary term has become an oddity in our nation. Over the last 25 years all states and territories have adopted four-year terms, with all but Tasmania also moving to fixed terms. Clearly this sky has not fallen in and it raises the question as to, if they can all do it why can't the national parliament? The answer is quite simple. While the states and territories have been able to alter their electoral periods by legislation, part III section 28 of the Australian Constitution declares: Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved … The simplest way to amend the Constitution is to change the word three to four. The history of efforts of constitutional change in this country is marked more often by failure than success, and so if we were to push for change we would need to make a clear case for change, and then select the path which will negate populist calls of self-interest that may be levelled against politicians who promote the change. The essence of good government is stability—the ability for governments to focus on a plan, to make commitments to the plan and then to be in government long enough to either reap the benefits or wear the blame for folly. The current three-year time frame is simply too short for these outcomes and, it can be argued, pushes the government to adopt policies which give short-term benefit rather than focusing on the longer term effects. Three-year terms are particularly challenging for newly-elected governments, which, it's generally conceded, spend the first year settling in, the second year trying to implement their electoral agenda and the last year in an ever-increasing frenzy of self-promotion in an effort to ensure they get another term. In the case of a four-year term, they would hope to benefit from policy implemented in their first term. It's well known that business confidence falls away as an election approaches. Businesses prefer to make decisions when as many factors as possible are predictable. The chance of a change of government introduces extra risk. A longer term of government reduces the periods when business is hit by this uncertainty. While it can be argued that in general Australia has been governed well—witness our place in the world—generally this election cycle diminishes governance. Comparable democracies—in most cases our major trading partners, such as Germany, Japan, Canada and the US, in the case of presidential tenure—all have four-year terms. The UK and France have five. If it is recognised as good governance for them and for all of our member states and territories, it would surely also be a good outcome for the national parliament. In fact, even though Australia has had three-year terms since Federation, largely because our terms are not fixed the average length of government over 45 parliaments through to 2019 has been less than 32 months. The public cost of elections has been increasing at a rate far in excess of inflation. The general election in 1980 cost $12.4 million, in 1990 it was $55.4 million, by 2001 it was $105.8 million, in 2010 it was $161.3 million, and in 2016, the latest election we have figures for, it was $286.6 million—albeit that was a double dissolution. While we don't yet know the cost of the 2019 election, we can probably assume it was in the vicinity of $300 million, and $300 million equates to $100 million a year on average for the length of the parliament. A move to four-year terms would reduce the frequency of elections by 25 per cent, averaging out to $75 million a year, a saving of $100 million per parliament. That's a very simple saving and a simple message for the public: four-year terms save taxpayers money. These figures do not include the amounts raised and spent on campaigns by the parties, although it is unclear as to whether four-year terms would reduce this amount or simply mean there is more spent on each election. Since the adoption of our Constitution in 1901, 44 nationwide referenda have been staged. Just six have had even partial success. It is clear that Australians have great faith in the document that has served us well for 118 years and need a strong, united argument to change it. The most successful referendum was in 1967, recognising Aboriginals as full citizens of our country. It was supported by the major parties and received 90.77 per cent support from the population. To provide the best chance of achieving change, it is essential that bipartisan support is forthcoming. Ideally, other parties and independents would provide support as well. If a bipartisan position cannot be achieved, the question of four-year parliamentary terms should not be put. The call for four-year terms have not been the sole domain of any one party, and, with goodwill, it is difficult to see why most would not support this reform. If we are to convince the public that one of the benefits of four-year terms is a reduced demand on taxpayers' dollars, it will be important that we put the referendum question at a general election, preferably the next one, which is likely to occur in the first half of 2022. If this were the case, costs could be minimised—probably in the vicinity of a million dollars for the printing of the ballots, perhaps $10 million to $20 million to fund the yes and no cases, and an amount for public education on how to participate in the ballot. Probably the most challenging part of the reform is what to do with the Senate. Part 2, section 7, paragraph 4 of the Constitution stipulates: The senators shall be chosen for a term of six years, and the names of the senators chosen for each State shall be certified by the Governor to the Governor-General. Consequently, if senate elections were to continue in unison with the House of Representatives, this too would need alteration. The Australian public would likely, and quite rightly, reject an alteration to the Constitution which led to separate Senate elections, and, in that case, more elections—as would be the case if the House of Representatives served a four-year term and the senators were elected for six. If we are to shift to four-year terms in the House of Representatives, the question arises as to whether we elect a full Senate every four years or elect senators for eight years. Amongst the Australian states, three—New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania—have eight-year terms for their upper houses. While it can well be argued that eight years is a long time, it does not seem to be an issue causing any great concern in any of those jurisdictions. In Victoria and Western Australia, the upper houses operate at a variance and feature multimember electorates. All of their seats are declared vacant at each election. Queensland, the Northern Territory and the ACT have unicameral systems. On balance, and for simplicity of the case, the best chance of achieving success in a referendum would likely be minimal change. This would be achieved by moving to an eight-year Senate term. I think the case for a fixed term is less convincing, with only the USA and Canada of the countries listed at the beginning of this synopsis specifying election dates. In Australia, while most states and territories are fixed it is not universal. Including fixed terms is likely to make reform more complex than simply putting the case for four-year terms. I would not recommend it unless it were a prerequisite to achieving bipartisan support. It is difficult to see how a no case would find much traction if the proposal could not be attacked on the basis of being a waste of money. But it may well attract criticism to members or governments with accusations of self-interest in wanting to elongate their terms. Another concern may be possible legal difficulties arising from the transition from a parliament elected under the current Constitution, specifying three-year terms, somehow transferring to a four-year term, should a referendum be successful. The quite simple way to deal with both these issues is to propose that the new rules take effect at the election after the one in which the referendum is proposed and passed—hopefully, the next one. At this stage, it would mean the first four-year parliament would be for the one elected in 2025. In that way, candidates and their parties would go to the electorate seeking a four-year term at that time. This would significantly dilute the arguments of self-interest, as any changed term would not apply to members for almost six years from today, by which time many participating in the process will have left the parliament. Additionally, it would assure the public that this was a long-term and well-considered change. This path also provides a good case for change and, providing bipartisan support can be achieved, it has a very high chance of success. It is in the national interest; it's difficult to see how it would advantage one group of Australians in front of any other. In that case, it should be to the advantage of all Australians and, in turn, makes sense that all sides of politics should work together for what is simply changing just a few words in the Constitution, all being within part II. The first are in section 7, about the Senate, and in the fourth paragraph. It refers to the elected term of senators, and we would replace the word 'six' with 'eight'. The paragraph in section 13 refers to the election of senators in instances of dissolution. The word 'three' should be replaced with 'four' where it occurs in conjunction with the House of Representatives, and for the Senate 'eight' should be replaced where 'six' occurs now. And in section 28, about the duration of the House of Representatives, the word 'three' should be replaced with the word 'four'. I think this would be a great reform for the nation. World Day Against the Death Penalty 111 19:08 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler Recently, I attended a forum in Brisbane in commemoration of World Day Against the Death Penalty, which is observed annually on 10 October. This forum brought together people from various backgrounds—lawyers, academics, journalists and concerned members of civil society—to recommit to the ultimate pursuit of a world free of the death penalty. I take this opportunity to thank Stephen Keim, SC, Australians Against the Death Penalty and the Julian Wagner Memorial Fund for hosting this great event and providing a platform for a constructive discussion on this very pertinent issue. I also acknowledge my fellow panellists on the night: Cindy Wockner, renowned journalist and author, and Sarah Kowal, a good friend, barrister and clinical supervisor of the Anti-Death Penalty Clinic at Monash University. To me, capital punishment is the most cruel and inhumane response to crime. My opposition to capital punishment is universal; it's not only when Australian lives are at stake. The death penalty is inevitably associated with miscarriages of justice, the inadvertent execution of innocents and the disproportionate execution of the poor and ethnic and religious minorities. No legal system is free from error. In 2016 Amnesty recorded 60 cases where prisoners were sentenced to death yet were found to have been not guilty of the crime. In the USA, there are 164 cases where people have been released from death row since 1973 due to evidence of their wrongful conviction. These cases demonstrate the pressing nature of capital punishment. The death penalty represents the violation of the most fundamental and basic human right, the right to life itself. The most credible research indicates that capital punishment does not deter crime. A 2009 survey conducted by the University of Colorado, which remains one of the most authoritative studies on the issue of deterrence, found that 88 per cent of America's leading criminologists did not believe that the death penalty had any deterrent value on crime. I believe that in modern society we have adequate means to punish people for their crimes, but, importantly, we also have the ability to genuinely assist people with rehabilitation. The international community, quite frankly, has come a long way towards abolishing the practice of capital punishment, with 106 countries now having abolished the death penalty. Another 28 countries retain the death penalty but have not carried out an execution over the last 10 years. Unfortunately, that leaves 56 countries which have actively retained the death penalty. Last year, I attended the regional parliamentary seminar in Malaysia. It is a forum in which parliamentarians from around the globe come together, united in their opposition to the death penalty. The seminar gave me the opportunity to engage with various stakeholders from the broader international community on positive steps that we can take towards the abolition of the death penalty. At the time, there was great momentum as the Malaysian government had taken the decision, which we thought was significant political leadership, to announce its intention to completely abolish the death penalty in that country and, as a consequence, brought to bear an immediate moratorium. However, such steps were suddenly halted by the cabinet, which recanted its initial decision in favour of setting up a committee to look into alternatives to mandatory death sentences. This change in position is reportedly due to fears on a domestic political level that the government would be seen to be weak on crime if it abolished capital punishment. As a consequence, the Malaysian position is now to change the 11 remaining mandatory capital offences so that they become discretionary. At the seminar I had the opportunity also to meet with a young woman named Maitreyi Misra, an associate of the National Law University in Delhi. She expressed concern about the manner in which the criminal justice system was operating in India. She noted that most individuals caught up in drug related crime were often from poorer backgrounds and could not afford legal representation. Therefore, they were represented by the state, a body which did not have a vested interest in the outcomes of those matters, as she put it. She also noted a pattern in these cases where individuals were pressured into pleading guilty and persuaded simply to rely on applications for clemency. This was consistent with the feedback I had also received from other quarters and jurisdictions, including a number of the lawyers from Malaysia itself. In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte urged the return of the death penalty for drug related crimes and plunder, in his address to the nation in July of this year. The Philippines House of Representatives has already started deliberation on bills to give effect to that. This is a major setback, because the Philippines was the first country to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to abolish the death penalty, back in 2007. This change in the law is in keeping with the President's nationwide campaign against drugs, with extrajudicial executions being the principal human rights concern. According to Human Rights Watch, 27,000 people have been killed extrajudicially in the past two years under Duterte's national war on drugs. Last October, I had the opportunity of addressing the Philippines Human Rights Commission again on World Day Against the Death Penalty. During that time I was briefed by Commissioner Karen Gomez-Dumpit, who told me about the exercise conducted by the commission where they reviewed the prosecutions that would otherwise have been considered capital cases and found significant judicial errors in 70 per cent of those matters. In Sri Lanka, President Sirisena has announced an end to the country's 43-year moratorium on capital punishment, issuing death warrants for four drug offenders. It is a move that was inspired by the President's visit to the Philippines earlier this year, where he praised the President Duterte's war on drugs, calling it 'an example to the world'. It is this populist rhetoric that has been employed by other notable world leaders, including President Donald Trump, who is a known supporter of the death penalty and has also publicly praised the efforts of President Duterte. Despite these disappointing developments internationally regarding the death penalty, there's been a pleasing 30 per cent reduction in the number of executions, as published in a report by Amnesty International in 2018. As Australians, we can be proud of our longstanding bipartisan and principled opposition to capital punishment and Australia's support for the work undertaken by the United Nations on abolition. Most recently, as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Australia has played and continues to play a strong and committed role for the global abolition of the death penalty. I commend the government and the minister in that respect. Those of us privileged enough to hold public office should continue to build upon these efforts to end the death penalty, particularly in our region. As co-chair of Australian Parliamentarians Against the Death Penalty, I have been fortunate enough to have the opportunity to raise public awareness on this issue in various platforms, including on a global scale. Earlier this year, we corresponded on behalf of the parliament with the ambassador to the People's Republic of China, raising concerns about the death sentence that was handed down on Canadian citizen Lloyd Schellenberg. In March this year, I wrote to the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, congratulating him on his recent decision enabling a moratorium on the death penalty and providing a reprieve to all of the 730 prisoners. Phil Robertson, Deputy Director, Asia Division, Human Rights Watch, says: Abolishing the death penalty is a long-term effort … where progress will be seen over years rather than months. While it's the prerogative of each country to walk its own path towards abolition, we must continue to use our various platforms to support, inspire and encourage other nations in their journey towards the abolition of the death penalty. Electorate of Barker 112 19:18 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Being a member of this place is a complete and utter privilege, and I know that anyone who I have the privilege of calling a colleague agrees with me. These are roles that are on loan to us by the Australian people. In my case, it's a privileged position, one that I don't take for granted, provided courtesy of the people of the great electorate of Barker. But the federal parliament is here in Canberra. On average we spend about 20 weeks a year in our nation's capital. By its very nature, being a federal member of parliament drags you away from your constituency. You spend a lot of time away from the very people you're representing, because, quite frankly, the national parliament, the seat of parliament in Australia federally, is here in Canberra. The best and most effective members of parliament are those that are connected to their community. They're in touch, they're wired in, they've got the electorate's Zeitgeist. I find that the best way to do that is to remain connected. Whilst the job seeks to drag you away, you need to fight hard to clamour to stay connected. It's the reason I have programs that I commit to, like spending each Saturday at the local footy club and cooking a barbecue or selling cans. It's the reason why I do a number of things, but one of the programs I've embarked upon in order to remain connected, particularly to the smaller communities in my electorate, is a series of 40 community meetings that I convened over the course of 12 months leading up to the election in May of this year. These were 40 community meetings in many of the much smaller communities in my electorate, where I simply invited the constituents to come along and share their views. They could raise their concerns about their community and make me aware of issues that might be idiosyncratic or perhaps broader issues both across the electorate and across the nation. I must say that a few things struck me. My electorate is 64,000 square kilometres and it takes me a good six hours to drive from one end of it to another, but there was great commonality of the issues raised at these community meetings. I want to speak about a few of those issues that were common across the communities. There were lots of little issues and we had lots of little wins along the way. I think that being present in a community in that way was very valuable. I won't speak about those idiosyncratic issues, whether they were about the tree shedding limbs in the memorial park at Tarpeena or a particular intersection or a speed sign causing grief around Cobdogla. I want to talk about the broader issues that were common across my electorate. I will speak first of roads. It's no surprise that the No. 1 issue that people wanted to come and talk to me about was the state of roads in the electorate. We would spend some time running through the nature of road funding architecture in this country. I think that as members of parliament we should do a better job in educating people about how road funding is structured between the federal, state and local governments. When I spoke to these constituents across these 40 meetings I would always ask a common question: if there was one singular thing you could do to make the roads in your community safer, what would it be? On balance, the answer was always, 'Make them wider'. Widen the roads. That might be hard for people who live exclusively in metropolitan settings to understand, but at times roads in the country are relatively narrow. They can narrow even further if the bitumen at the edge of the road breaks away. What my constituents want to see, particularly in terms of those secondary roads, is that they are widened. I can name some, whether it's the Horrocks Highway, the Thiele Highway, the Brownswell Highway or the Princess Highway, and in another context they would be federal government roads. Indeed, constituents believed they were federal government roads, but they're in fact state roads. Note that it costs about $100,000 a kilometre to widen them, and that we would achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries. That's something which we need to do more of: make roads safer. As someone who drives 100,000 kilometres a year in this role, I can tell you that I feel safer on a wide road. I relax into the drive and I'm a much better driver for the relaxed nature of my driving. So that was the issue around roads. In terms of health, they were concerned about access to GPs. Affordability is a separate question, and whilst they were somewhat concerned about ensuring that there were increasingly higher rates of bulk billing, they were principally concerned about ensuring they can get to a GP. Not all of these communities were concerned about this issue, but the test I would ask in a community was: if you woke up crook tomorrow morning, what are your prospects of seeing a doctor? And I specifically asked about 'a doctor', not 'your doctor'. The answer was mixed, but in communities where there was a lack of GP services it was a very significant issue. Of course, our government, and indeed this parliament, need to do more to ensure that we have a correct distribution of general practitioners around the country. In my view, we have a pretty significant maldistribution of general practitioners. There are very high concentrations in our capital cities and major regional cities, and a much lower per capita availability of GPs in the regions. So those were their issues: wider roads and GPs in communities. We then talk about the questions around telecommunications, and you might not be surprised, Mr Deputy Speaker, to learn that their concern was their ability to make a phone call from the paddock. They were less concerned about high-speed broadband, because, on balance, they knew and they could see that our government had a significant plan—a plan that runs at close to $50 billion—to provide NBN services across the nation. In my electorate, 99 per cent of that has been rolled out, but they remained focused on issues around mobile phone connectivity. Of course, we've got the Mobile Black Spot Program. Whilst that is addressing some of the black spots, we need to continue to work through them. In my respectful view, we need to ensure the community has a greater say about which sites are serviced. Communities are such intelligent ecosystems; they know exactly where the next priority is and they have a deep empathy for their neighbours, so they're not going to campaign for a mobile phone in their community if it would be less significant or impactful than a mobile phone tower in another community. Empowering and enfranchising, if you like, the community to provide detailed input in relation to those sites would be, I think, a significant improvement. It's something we need to do. The other issue that gave me really significant cause for concern was the labour force. On more than one occasion—indeed, on multiple occasions—employers would attend the forums and speak to me about the fact that they were keen to invest, to double down in terms of their business enterprise, but were nervous about doing so not because of the nature of the international markets they were selling into or because of issues in and around the vicissitudes of the weather but, rather, because they were very nervous about access to labour. This is something that gives me really significant cause for concern. In places in my electorate like the Riverland, if it weren't for programs like the Pacific Islander Seasonal Worker Program that this government has established, we simply wouldn't be picking sufficient fruit to make these enterprises viable. Yet, in those same communities, there are people who are long-term unemployed. This tension was an issue that was drawn to my attention across the electorate as we travelled and spoke at these community meetings. It's an issue we, quite frankly, need to resolve. As I said in a news interview today, my parents travelled from Italy. They travelled across continents in the 1960s for a job. In fact, it wasn't even a job; it was the prospect of a job. But we seemingly are having difficulty with jobs that are available in areas like the Riverland and in the Tatiara in my electorate, where they're close to full employment. They're not being filled, particularly where there are other areas in our state with high rates of unemployment. In any event, I remain one of the luckiest people on earth to have this role of being the voice of the people of Barker in this place. I love remaining connected to my electorate, and the community meetings I convened over the course of the last 12 months have really helped me remain connected. That's what you need to be if you want to do a good job for them here in this place. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is now interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:28